I was discussing my atheist inclinations with a friend and i wrote this as a reply to her. I thot it'd make good material for my blog too. My friend had once seen me entering a temple and bowing before the idol. So wen i told her that im an Atheist, she asked me abt it. She also tuched upon why God is important to her. I will only write my reply to her.
so here it goes....
[...my friend's reply here...]
dats the reply i received. lemme first say that wat im gonna say further is a personal view. india is a democratic nation and every1 is entitled to free thinking. this statement is not just a prelude. its important because it differentiates me from a fundamentalist or an extremist. so take my views as just views and not as smthing im trying to ram down ur throat. thats the last thing i'd do. Also, once i engage in a debate or a conversation like this, it can get really long, extending over long time periods and sometimes covering a diverse range of subjects. I can only ask you to bear with this. I hope you get interested...
My views:
Religion cannot be discussed in isolation from God. Not only here in India but anywhere else. In order to justify this statement, I'd like to first delve into the historical origins of religion.
Man has always been fascinated by his surroundings. He always sought to find answers to a number of things. For example, the origin of earth, origin of mankind, why men are different from women. Why man is different from animals. 5000 years ago, man was confronted with an assortment of mysteries. He always was on a quest to find answers.
Man is an intelligent creature. Since time immemorial, the basic approach to problem solving has been this:
1) Identifying the problem
2) Collating a list of possible ALTERNATIVE solutions (called theories)
3) Identify the BEST solution (theory or proposition) to the problem
4) Test the theory to see if it conforms to the constraints of logical reasoning and observed facts.
5) If the theory passes the tests of rational logic and answers the observed facts, it then becomes a Law.
We once had the Newton's Theories. They were experimentally tested and then they became Newton's Law. Because they have been PROVEN EXPERIMENTALLY, LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY. All the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Newton's Law cannot be disobeyed.
The above process of problem solving is not something written in books. Its the natural process that human brain adopts subconsciously.
So when man was confronted with the problem of say for example, 'Origin of Mankind', he used the same process of problem solving as follows:
1) Identifying the Problem: How did man, animals, life come in to existence. The life on earth was so complex, with so many species of plants, animals, races of men, that the problem seemed INFINITELY COMPLEX.
2) Finding the possible solutions to the problem:
a) A divine omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, entity could only have created such an INFINITELY COMPLEX universe
b) An alien life from another planet gave birth to mankind
c) Life on earth and mankind EVOLVED over a period of millions of years (Charles Darwin published his 'theory' of natural selection. its still a theory. but it has been proving itself constantly without significant rational criticism. And whatever criticism it is receiving is in my opinion, irrational and illogical
d) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a dream, an illusion
e) Life as we see does not exist at all. Life on earth is actually an entertainment play, watched by Gods
f) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a computer game/program running on somebody's (God's?) computer. (Unbelievable? search the internet or spend some time on chat networks and you'll find people who actually believe this crap)
g) Think of 'n' number of more alternative solutions yourself
3) The best and the most plausible theory 5000 years back, when we didn't have theory of evolution or alien birth. The possibility of existence of a Divine God who created mankind was itself so romantic that most people fell for it. As for the others who found it hard to digest even then, they were asked if they'd a better answer? Obviously, The God theory came to be accepted worldwide. Mind you, It was accepted. but NOT TESTED.
4) Testing the theory:
The God theory was supposedly tested. Lot of events, who's cause could not be found, were attributed to God. Many so called miracles were testified and wrongfully taken as an evidence for existence of God.
5) Proclaiming the theory as a Law:
With the so called evidence and with no other better theory at hand, mankind unanimously accepted the God theory and proclaimed it a Law. This law was called Religion.
Every country has had some form of a codified religion. Indians had the Vedas, Christians had Bible, Jews had Bible and the Torah, Muslims had Koran. Others who didn't have a written culture had some form of oral laws forming the basis of religion.
Problem with Religion and hence God theory:
All theories have to be tested and verified. evidence gathered and subjected to rational examination. Religion passed this test 5000 years ago. But todays it fails.
All theories evolve. Newton proposed say theory 'X'. It was tested, passed, proclaimed a law. But it was re-tested. Einstein did it too and he found that Newton's Laws could be disobeyed in some cases. Based on these discrepancies in earlier theories, Einstein formulated a new theory, 'Theory of relativity'
In the same vein, religion and God theory had to be tested, re-tested and re-re-tested in light of newer knowledge been discovered. We now have a much more likely theory of evolution of mankind. It is much more logical and acceptable to rational mind. Then why not re-test the God theory and subject it to criticism? Why not dare and discard it if it fails miserably in comparison to alternative explanations for origin of mankind?
The reason is, religion has been here for far too long a time. Religion and the God theory is not a theory anymore. Its a way of life. It defines the way people live their lives. It differentiates cultures and guides the society in its day to day affairs.
What does it mean to an Atheist like me?
As an atheist, i am a rational man. And I feel that mankind is a weak race. Man as an individual needs support. He needs guidance and comfort. Some people find it in their mothers, some in their wives, some in spiritual gurus and some like me, in own self.
I as an individual find the grounds for existence of God, very shaky and hard to believe. But there are people who differ. As a rational SOCIAL animal, I would follow the ways of the society to a reasonable extent. I as an Atheist do not find it hard to enter a temple and even bow before an idol because its an object of worship for my parents, my friends and my loved ones.
I respect my loved ones. This is what differentiates me from fundamentalists and makes me a civilized man. I know a lot many Atheist bigots who hunt down their religious counterparts and engage in fruitless ranting and stupid blabbering.
As a teenager, I did have extremist views once. I severely resented any religious activity and rituals. I used to make fun of 'Artis' and 'Shlokas'.
I am however now satisfied that I as an individual have evolved over time. I realize that God as a support system is very important for many people. It gives comfort and strength to many people (like yourself perhaps). As a support system, it keeps many humans going.
Would I enter a temple and pray to an entity that I think does not exist?
Yes. I would enter a temple. I would also not mind bowing and joining my hands before an idol. But I would not pray. Joining hands to me is a ritual. As much I find religious rituals blasphemous I dont think they are irrational. They are a means to bring the society together. Although they purport the existence of a God (which i disagree), they also perform a much more important function: they gel the society together (which is more important for me)
There is an important difference between logic and rationalism. Idea that God exists is Illogical. But I wouldn't call it Irrational simply because it makes sense to have a God like entity (even if its imaginary) in a society to keep it from plunging into chaos.
Taking a broader view of life, I would definitely make known my Atheist views and argue as to its logicality. But I know life is seldom logical. I hence wouldn't even mind bowing before an imaginary God. I know God doesn't exist. So what harm does it cause if my head bows before something that my parents call God, but i consider a stone idol?
What will the society loose out?
In case we continue with the God theory, the only aspect that society would loose out on would be failure to explore possibilities other than God. Ok, so if God didn't create the universe then who did? If everyone on earth believed in existence of God, who would pursue the cause of scientific exploration? who would find an alternative theory?
An important criticism to the above statement is that most scientists in history were religious. Yes, sure, they were religious. They did accept the God theory. But they knew that it was a theory. They tested and re-tested it. This is what is more important. Mankind must test religion for its utility. Religion Should EVOLVE. My complaint lies in the fact that today's religions have all remained stagnant for too long.
Also, in case of a religion, some Social benefits are derived, while some social benefits (like say scientific accomplishments) are lost causing cost to the society (eg. superstition). A cost to benefit analysis would demonstrate if religion is of utility or not. If the Costs in the form of Social evils and loss of scientific accomplishments is high while, the social benefits of religion are low, a religion becomes a liability.
As an Indian and a born and brought up Hindu, I would say that for Hinduism the cost incurred is slightly lower than the benefits derived. As a result my thinking would allow benefit of doubt to Hinduism as far as its utility is concerned.
So whats the conclusion?
The conclusion is, one must remains rational. Not logical. If an imaginary God benefits somebody, go for it. If one can do away with external divine support and learn to support oneself, nothing better than that. As an indivdual, I have learnt to stand up on my feet and not look for support from an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent but imaginary entity.
From my observation, I find that religious persons find it much easier to commit 'sins' because they know (or they believe) that there's a God sitting in the heavens who'd forgive them if they pray or follow a few rituals like bathing in waters of a holy river.
In my case, the very belief that there is no God to support me, to forgive my sins, to grant me wishes, to help me in times of trouble, to console me when I am sad, makes me work that much extra hard to support myself, to live an ethical life. My only solace is my conscience. My conscience prevents me from committing a Sin. My conscience gives me strength when I feel weak. My conscience makes me a better human being. My conscience is my support system. And it works better for me than an imaginary God...
I hope you think about it...
And thanx my friend. coz you just inspired me to write another article for my blog. find the above discussion on my blog at Naklistan.com
tata, tc
--
Raka Naklistani :-)
so here it goes....
[...my friend's reply here...]
dats the reply i received. lemme first say that wat im gonna say further is a personal view. india is a democratic nation and every1 is entitled to free thinking. this statement is not just a prelude. its important because it differentiates me from a fundamentalist or an extremist. so take my views as just views and not as smthing im trying to ram down ur throat. thats the last thing i'd do. Also, once i engage in a debate or a conversation like this, it can get really long, extending over long time periods and sometimes covering a diverse range of subjects. I can only ask you to bear with this. I hope you get interested...
My views:
Religion cannot be discussed in isolation from God. Not only here in India but anywhere else. In order to justify this statement, I'd like to first delve into the historical origins of religion.
Man has always been fascinated by his surroundings. He always sought to find answers to a number of things. For example, the origin of earth, origin of mankind, why men are different from women. Why man is different from animals. 5000 years ago, man was confronted with an assortment of mysteries. He always was on a quest to find answers.
Man is an intelligent creature. Since time immemorial, the basic approach to problem solving has been this:
1) Identifying the problem
2) Collating a list of possible ALTERNATIVE solutions (called theories)
3) Identify the BEST solution (theory or proposition) to the problem
4) Test the theory to see if it conforms to the constraints of logical reasoning and observed facts.
5) If the theory passes the tests of rational logic and answers the observed facts, it then becomes a Law.
We once had the Newton's Theories. They were experimentally tested and then they became Newton's Law. Because they have been PROVEN EXPERIMENTALLY, LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY. All the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Newton's Law cannot be disobeyed.
The above process of problem solving is not something written in books. Its the natural process that human brain adopts subconsciously.
So when man was confronted with the problem of say for example, 'Origin of Mankind', he used the same process of problem solving as follows:
1) Identifying the Problem: How did man, animals, life come in to existence. The life on earth was so complex, with so many species of plants, animals, races of men, that the problem seemed INFINITELY COMPLEX.
2) Finding the possible solutions to the problem:
a) A divine omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, entity could only have created such an INFINITELY COMPLEX universe
b) An alien life from another planet gave birth to mankind
c) Life on earth and mankind EVOLVED over a period of millions of years (Charles Darwin published his 'theory' of natural selection. its still a theory. but it has been proving itself constantly without significant rational criticism. And whatever criticism it is receiving is in my opinion, irrational and illogical
d) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a dream, an illusion
e) Life as we see does not exist at all. Life on earth is actually an entertainment play, watched by Gods
f) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a computer game/program running on somebody's (God's?) computer. (Unbelievable? search the internet or spend some time on chat networks and you'll find people who actually believe this crap)
g) Think of 'n' number of more alternative solutions yourself
3) The best and the most plausible theory 5000 years back, when we didn't have theory of evolution or alien birth. The possibility of existence of a Divine God who created mankind was itself so romantic that most people fell for it. As for the others who found it hard to digest even then, they were asked if they'd a better answer? Obviously, The God theory came to be accepted worldwide. Mind you, It was accepted. but NOT TESTED.
4) Testing the theory:
The God theory was supposedly tested. Lot of events, who's cause could not be found, were attributed to God. Many so called miracles were testified and wrongfully taken as an evidence for existence of God.
5) Proclaiming the theory as a Law:
With the so called evidence and with no other better theory at hand, mankind unanimously accepted the God theory and proclaimed it a Law. This law was called Religion.
Every country has had some form of a codified religion. Indians had the Vedas, Christians had Bible, Jews had Bible and the Torah, Muslims had Koran. Others who didn't have a written culture had some form of oral laws forming the basis of religion.
Problem with Religion and hence God theory:
All theories have to be tested and verified. evidence gathered and subjected to rational examination. Religion passed this test 5000 years ago. But todays it fails.
All theories evolve. Newton proposed say theory 'X'. It was tested, passed, proclaimed a law. But it was re-tested. Einstein did it too and he found that Newton's Laws could be disobeyed in some cases. Based on these discrepancies in earlier theories, Einstein formulated a new theory, 'Theory of relativity'
In the same vein, religion and God theory had to be tested, re-tested and re-re-tested in light of newer knowledge been discovered. We now have a much more likely theory of evolution of mankind. It is much more logical and acceptable to rational mind. Then why not re-test the God theory and subject it to criticism? Why not dare and discard it if it fails miserably in comparison to alternative explanations for origin of mankind?
The reason is, religion has been here for far too long a time. Religion and the God theory is not a theory anymore. Its a way of life. It defines the way people live their lives. It differentiates cultures and guides the society in its day to day affairs.
What does it mean to an Atheist like me?
As an atheist, i am a rational man. And I feel that mankind is a weak race. Man as an individual needs support. He needs guidance and comfort. Some people find it in their mothers, some in their wives, some in spiritual gurus and some like me, in own self.
I as an individual find the grounds for existence of God, very shaky and hard to believe. But there are people who differ. As a rational SOCIAL animal, I would follow the ways of the society to a reasonable extent. I as an Atheist do not find it hard to enter a temple and even bow before an idol because its an object of worship for my parents, my friends and my loved ones.
I respect my loved ones. This is what differentiates me from fundamentalists and makes me a civilized man. I know a lot many Atheist bigots who hunt down their religious counterparts and engage in fruitless ranting and stupid blabbering.
As a teenager, I did have extremist views once. I severely resented any religious activity and rituals. I used to make fun of 'Artis' and 'Shlokas'.
I am however now satisfied that I as an individual have evolved over time. I realize that God as a support system is very important for many people. It gives comfort and strength to many people (like yourself perhaps). As a support system, it keeps many humans going.
Would I enter a temple and pray to an entity that I think does not exist?
Yes. I would enter a temple. I would also not mind bowing and joining my hands before an idol. But I would not pray. Joining hands to me is a ritual. As much I find religious rituals blasphemous I dont think they are irrational. They are a means to bring the society together. Although they purport the existence of a God (which i disagree), they also perform a much more important function: they gel the society together (which is more important for me)
There is an important difference between logic and rationalism. Idea that God exists is Illogical. But I wouldn't call it Irrational simply because it makes sense to have a God like entity (even if its imaginary) in a society to keep it from plunging into chaos.
Taking a broader view of life, I would definitely make known my Atheist views and argue as to its logicality. But I know life is seldom logical. I hence wouldn't even mind bowing before an imaginary God. I know God doesn't exist. So what harm does it cause if my head bows before something that my parents call God, but i consider a stone idol?
What will the society loose out?
In case we continue with the God theory, the only aspect that society would loose out on would be failure to explore possibilities other than God. Ok, so if God didn't create the universe then who did? If everyone on earth believed in existence of God, who would pursue the cause of scientific exploration? who would find an alternative theory?
An important criticism to the above statement is that most scientists in history were religious. Yes, sure, they were religious. They did accept the God theory. But they knew that it was a theory. They tested and re-tested it. This is what is more important. Mankind must test religion for its utility. Religion Should EVOLVE. My complaint lies in the fact that today's religions have all remained stagnant for too long.
Also, in case of a religion, some Social benefits are derived, while some social benefits (like say scientific accomplishments) are lost causing cost to the society (eg. superstition). A cost to benefit analysis would demonstrate if religion is of utility or not. If the Costs in the form of Social evils and loss of scientific accomplishments is high while, the social benefits of religion are low, a religion becomes a liability.
As an Indian and a born and brought up Hindu, I would say that for Hinduism the cost incurred is slightly lower than the benefits derived. As a result my thinking would allow benefit of doubt to Hinduism as far as its utility is concerned.
So whats the conclusion?
The conclusion is, one must remains rational. Not logical. If an imaginary God benefits somebody, go for it. If one can do away with external divine support and learn to support oneself, nothing better than that. As an indivdual, I have learnt to stand up on my feet and not look for support from an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent but imaginary entity.
From my observation, I find that religious persons find it much easier to commit 'sins' because they know (or they believe) that there's a God sitting in the heavens who'd forgive them if they pray or follow a few rituals like bathing in waters of a holy river.
In my case, the very belief that there is no God to support me, to forgive my sins, to grant me wishes, to help me in times of trouble, to console me when I am sad, makes me work that much extra hard to support myself, to live an ethical life. My only solace is my conscience. My conscience prevents me from committing a Sin. My conscience gives me strength when I feel weak. My conscience makes me a better human being. My conscience is my support system. And it works better for me than an imaginary God...
I hope you think about it...
And thanx my friend. coz you just inspired me to write another article for my blog. find the above discussion on my blog at Naklistan.com
tata, tc
--
Raka Naklistani :-)
2 comments:
Well I did go through your article, not that I am unaware of your views or that of other atheists.
“Man needs guidance and comfort. Some people find it in their mothers, some in their wives, some in spiritual gurus and some like me, in own self.”
Wait till I show this to your future wife, would love to see the look on her face.
Well getting to the heart of the matter, you have pointed out that the whole THEORY of religion cannot be proved and sustained. What I gotta say to that is, EXACTLY my friend, it is not meant to be proved, it is for you to believe or to not believe. GOD has never asked anyone to believe in the omnipresent. It is entirely upto you, at least in liberal religions like Hinduism. Nobody will label you as a kafir or a non-believer, but I cant say the same about certain other newer religions.
In our religion, you are free to approach god in your own way, in the sense that there is no fixed way of offering prayers. You are right when you say that joining hands may be considered a ritual, but in Hinduism, you DO NOT NEED to fold your hands while you offer your prayer. You may sit, stand, kneel, bow down or whatever position you are comfortable with, as long as you are offering your prayers, now that can hardly be called rituals, can they.
Well, you have also pointed out that religion has not been tested under laboratory conditions. My question to you is, can religion be really tested and experimented under atmospheric pressure and humidity and then PROVED? Well science and religion are entirely different, the problem is, you are trying to find a bridge between them, well you can keep looking.
You are right when you say that any religion needs to evolve. My question to you is, hasn’t Hinduism EVOLVED over the years and generations? There is a vast difference in way Hinduism is practiced today as compared to say, two hundred years ago. In our religion, there isn’t an instruction manual or rule book which you are supposed to refer to whenever you wish to approach the almighty (pray). Do you think any other religion would give you this liberty?
I may sound like someone who is trying to list the merits of Hinduism over other religions, but my intention is not that, what I am trying to do is, emphasize that there is a lot of liberty and freedom in our religion, unlike certain others. Hence, I don’t understand why people neglect this fact. Nothing is being forced down your throat.
I may also sound like someone who is hinting that the colour blue is the most soothing, while the person in front of me is actually colour blind. I am not promoting anything, just saying that nobody really HAS to do something just because others are doing it. All I am saying is, I am also a student of science, I have also studied all the laws and theories of science, hence it irritates me when people rely on science to question the existence of GOD.
If you ask me, the understanding that humans have about the elements shaping things around them, even in the 21st century is miniscule. All we have is a splash of darwins theory with additional supplements of newtons (laws) and relativity theories and tit-bits of certain others. All these theories have not been proved, as we all know, and might well be wrong. My question is, do you really think that with such low level of understanding of the elements around you, you can really talk at length about the existence or non existence of a creator? Can you debate about the creation of life and the solar system, when even the eminent scientists, let alone us, do not have a grasp of these prolonged events? Just because you (humans) created the airplane and the internet, you think you are so damn intelligent that silly god theories do not interest you? What level of understanding do you think you really have? Complete? Not in the least, then how can you take refuge in some prehistoric scientific theories that were proposed in the seventeenth century and feel proud of your intellect? Its been a long time that Newton and Galileo proved their laws. Humans have been resting on these sparks of geniuos works for a long time. As a student and as someone with infinite interest in science, I feel that there is lot lot lot more research and discoveries that need to be done. Only when we have known everything that there is to be known, can we say that, see, we have discovered so very much and hence can conclude that god DOES (or doesn’t, that’s not possible) exist. Till then, please do not rely on science, which we have only just BEGAN to play with, to make any big claims. Most of the works done in science cant be proved themselves, so they are in no position to prove the god theory wrong. I believe that the more we discover science, the closer we get to GOD.
Thank you. God bless.
Gimme some time to think and answer in detail. Just wanna say for now that I really find your arguments not just unconvincing, but also needing disputation...
Post a Comment