Disclaimer: If you hold anything in your life above debate, kindly don't read this post.
In my limited understanding and experience, I have come to believe that there is one art that has no equal in this world- the art of having no opinions. To clarify, this means to treat two conflicting ideas with equal respect and form no opinion. Let them hang in the balance without troubling oneself. To appreciate a good point, nudge the scales a little and go back to the state of wait and watch. To carry out an open-ended self debate. The much fabled Neutral Jing - neither advance nor retreat.
It is pretty obvious that having no opinions on some matters is quite difficult. We are too deep in one of the twin quick-sands of the debating ground. Our personal convictions are too personal to leave behind. So, let me consider the question which has no first order, tangible connection to most of us and yet, the deepest intangible effect by the most circuitous pathways - GOD. It is the benchmark question to gauge the spirit of the debater, the radical inside a new acquaintance. But I write of it out of completely different motivations. To explore those second order, intangible links to the most inexplicable facet of human life.
Before dissecting anything, let me tell you about my faith. I have had my own roller coaster ride. Once upon a time, I was as devout as circumstances would allow. Gradually I switched from the idea of predefined Hindu Gods to the general idea of a Supreme Power. Still, I found my assumption lacking and my faith wavering. I resorted to believing in chance, randomness and mathematical truth as supreme. Then, a quick succession of events led me to question and disbelieve anything that was not verifiable. This translates to deifying evolution and Darwinism. But some philosophical questions still remained. In the hindsight, this was more of a spiritual wanderlust than radical changes in faith. But this doesn't undermine the fact that it was a tumultuous and gratifying journey. Finally, I have found a temporary solution - truce. I am like a child angry with his parents - refusing to listen to them, refusing to even acknowledge their existence. I hope one day this will end and I will make true peace.
At the very outset, I would like to draw the boundaries. I will assume that survival is the most basic, primal, unalterable human instinct. Consider it the guiding axiom of this dialogue. I will also limit the domain of discussion to God and not wander into Religion. Involving religion involves debating about the best and the worst in human beings, a topic too messy to tackle unless you have sufficient hard evidence. It always ends up being a debate about unverifiable claims - human beings have property X. Some overlap is unavoidable and even required for the sake of debate. Moreover, religion has a very bad track record and defending it against a zealous person is an irrational task. I am not berating religion. I am just saying that it has become convoluted with the baser traits of those who have been shaping it, just like any old institution- caste system, marriage and plenty of others.
However, there is one unifying theme. The typical God of every religion has more or less the same attributes.
Let us name such an instance a 'textbook' God. Debating about textbook Gods is futile. They can't be even an approximation or minor distortion of the reality. They are stories that have been embellished for centuries and have more myth than divinity. For the sake of arguing, consider an argument adapted from The Brothers Karamazov. Suppose a person of faith X has done nothing but sinned his entire life. Nearing his death, he switches to faith Y and does some nice things, earning him a good name in the books of God(s) of faith Y. What becomes of him in his afterlife? I have never heard of Gods of two different religions having a chat about such a fellow. In fact, I have never heard them talking or even seeing each other at all. If he belongs to the Gods of Y, then this is the easiest way to go to heaven. If he belongs to the Gods of X, the Gods of Y are powerless in comparison. So, then why do they let religion Y exist? Why don't they bring down the vengeance they so often threaten in their sacred books? This is an old dilemma - comparing infinities. This elegant argument from the deepest gazer into human soul suffices to bring the debate to a dead-end. (Alas!! I started off by saying no opinions. But here I am, under my biases. Maybe I will swing back after hearing an equally good argument from the other side.)
So, let me restrict myself to the concept of a God or the theoretical possibility of a God and its effect on humanity as well as an individual. Rephrase it as 'What would be God like?'.I would also talk of afterlife - heaven, hell, purgatory and the likewise. To complete the sketch, I would talk of the place of God in social design, morality and assorted topics.
Let me start by tracking the evolution of religion. In my understanding, the earliest attempt by humans to comprehend the mysterious phenomena of nature was magic. Think of it as No understanding, Minimal Assumptions. This was man trying to find correlations between his actions and the events around him. Spirits of the dead were all they could think of. Gradually came the nature gods. As the stories grew, a more elaborate constellation of gods emerged. This was the stage of Little Understanding, Great Assumption, No Verification. Slowly came Science, much hindered and persecuted. But it gave results - verifiable results and a framework to understand them. Slowly but surely, science became the dominant paradigm of our age. But religion refuses to die out. Despite whatever goodies science throws at humanity, we refuse to let go of our religious roots. Magic died out as society progressed, now surviving mostly in African tribes. But not religion. The reason behind this merits serious thought. I will come back to it but before that, I want to raise an often raised doubt about debating on God.
Whether one believes in God or not, no one can deny that the topic is inflammatory. It can fire and stir human hearts as few other topics can. Men have done great things in the name of religion, and others have equally diabolical in the same name. But that does not lessen the motivation behind the truly marvelous deeds. Think of what I call the faith of Lincoln. Lincoln took the decision to not to cede to the demands of Southern States and went ahead with abolishing slavery. It plunged America into the Civil War, crippling life and engulfing men. It wasn't a very popular or economically sound decision. But Lincoln believed it was a moral one. He lived in a small house at the outskirts of Washington with just a Bible. Lincoln suffered with severe depression, and yet was able to save America from partition and became their greatest president. I strongly doubt he would have accomplished half as much without his faith. What about Mother Teresa? Robert Schuller? If I prove that there is no God, they will lose their motivation and humanity will suffer. What's bad if a lie makes everybody smile?
God serves as a reference frame in this fast changing world, otherwise governed by the principle of rat race - survival of the fittest. It is this contrast that makes God indispensable. Maybe God is just a personification of our inner moral compass. Personally, I endorse this view. I think everybody has his own personal God. Much like a guardian angel. To accommodate so many Gods, their powers would have to be toned down. However, this slope is slippery and it is better to walk with caution, lest I confuse myself with something eloquent yet meaningless. (An example which fooled me - True Gods must be silent. It's catchy, but stupid. You say it with beaming pride, and end up looking stupid.) Coming back to the topic, I think this is why humanity hasn't been able to let go of its Gods even after advancing to the next level of understanding nature. But in order to decide if the human race can live without the concept of God, it is imperative to answer the following question - what is the relation between God and morality? Will we as a society be less or more moral with no Gods peeking at us from the Heavens? I align with the less moral view. Without a God who sees and judges everybody, the only remaining parameter to base decisions will be survival, an inherently selfish concept. It will be like the Wild West, where the Man With No Name can come to your town and kill you just out of fancy.
Living in communities and the ensuing Division of Labor are the basic tenets of human progress. So, survival needs men to group together. Take example of a small primitive group. But as soon as a group is formed, comrades become competitors. Now, survival dictates them to outfox others to grow - to get the better partner, to get more resources. So, people resort to hitting below the belt - to gain that extra edge. However, if somebody tamper too much, there are two possibilities. If they are too numerous, the community will shatter else the miscreants will be thrown out . Either way, they will be forced to go alone against this big, bad world. And they definitely don't want that. So, they need to strike a balance between their greed and the general good. Here is where religion comes into picture.
I guess this post has dragged on for too long. But in order to be fair to the mammoth topic I have chose, much remains to be said-particularly on the social design theme. So, I have split this post into two. Wait for the next one. :))
PS: Most of the ideas presented here are a result of discussions with my friend, Jitin Gupta.
In my limited understanding and experience, I have come to believe that there is one art that has no equal in this world- the art of having no opinions. To clarify, this means to treat two conflicting ideas with equal respect and form no opinion. Let them hang in the balance without troubling oneself. To appreciate a good point, nudge the scales a little and go back to the state of wait and watch. To carry out an open-ended self debate. The much fabled Neutral Jing - neither advance nor retreat.
It is pretty obvious that having no opinions on some matters is quite difficult. We are too deep in one of the twin quick-sands of the debating ground. Our personal convictions are too personal to leave behind. So, let me consider the question which has no first order, tangible connection to most of us and yet, the deepest intangible effect by the most circuitous pathways - GOD. It is the benchmark question to gauge the spirit of the debater, the radical inside a new acquaintance. But I write of it out of completely different motivations. To explore those second order, intangible links to the most inexplicable facet of human life.
Before dissecting anything, let me tell you about my faith. I have had my own roller coaster ride. Once upon a time, I was as devout as circumstances would allow. Gradually I switched from the idea of predefined Hindu Gods to the general idea of a Supreme Power. Still, I found my assumption lacking and my faith wavering. I resorted to believing in chance, randomness and mathematical truth as supreme. Then, a quick succession of events led me to question and disbelieve anything that was not verifiable. This translates to deifying evolution and Darwinism. But some philosophical questions still remained. In the hindsight, this was more of a spiritual wanderlust than radical changes in faith. But this doesn't undermine the fact that it was a tumultuous and gratifying journey. Finally, I have found a temporary solution - truce. I am like a child angry with his parents - refusing to listen to them, refusing to even acknowledge their existence. I hope one day this will end and I will make true peace.
At the very outset, I would like to draw the boundaries. I will assume that survival is the most basic, primal, unalterable human instinct. Consider it the guiding axiom of this dialogue. I will also limit the domain of discussion to God and not wander into Religion. Involving religion involves debating about the best and the worst in human beings, a topic too messy to tackle unless you have sufficient hard evidence. It always ends up being a debate about unverifiable claims - human beings have property X. Some overlap is unavoidable and even required for the sake of debate. Moreover, religion has a very bad track record and defending it against a zealous person is an irrational task. I am not berating religion. I am just saying that it has become convoluted with the baser traits of those who have been shaping it, just like any old institution- caste system, marriage and plenty of others.
However, there is one unifying theme. The typical God of every religion has more or less the same attributes.
- All powerful, All knowing
- Demands unwavering and unflinching loyalty and devotion
- Promises insane rewards probably in this life and definitely in afterlife
- Will ruin and destroy those who do not believe in him (these are the most eloquent ones)
Let us name such an instance a 'textbook' God. Debating about textbook Gods is futile. They can't be even an approximation or minor distortion of the reality. They are stories that have been embellished for centuries and have more myth than divinity. For the sake of arguing, consider an argument adapted from The Brothers Karamazov. Suppose a person of faith X has done nothing but sinned his entire life. Nearing his death, he switches to faith Y and does some nice things, earning him a good name in the books of God(s) of faith Y. What becomes of him in his afterlife? I have never heard of Gods of two different religions having a chat about such a fellow. In fact, I have never heard them talking or even seeing each other at all. If he belongs to the Gods of Y, then this is the easiest way to go to heaven. If he belongs to the Gods of X, the Gods of Y are powerless in comparison. So, then why do they let religion Y exist? Why don't they bring down the vengeance they so often threaten in their sacred books? This is an old dilemma - comparing infinities. This elegant argument from the deepest gazer into human soul suffices to bring the debate to a dead-end. (Alas!! I started off by saying no opinions. But here I am, under my biases. Maybe I will swing back after hearing an equally good argument from the other side.)
So, let me restrict myself to the concept of a God or the theoretical possibility of a God and its effect on humanity as well as an individual. Rephrase it as 'What would be God like?'.I would also talk of afterlife - heaven, hell, purgatory and the likewise. To complete the sketch, I would talk of the place of God in social design, morality and assorted topics.
Let me start by tracking the evolution of religion. In my understanding, the earliest attempt by humans to comprehend the mysterious phenomena of nature was magic. Think of it as No understanding, Minimal Assumptions. This was man trying to find correlations between his actions and the events around him. Spirits of the dead were all they could think of. Gradually came the nature gods. As the stories grew, a more elaborate constellation of gods emerged. This was the stage of Little Understanding, Great Assumption, No Verification. Slowly came Science, much hindered and persecuted. But it gave results - verifiable results and a framework to understand them. Slowly but surely, science became the dominant paradigm of our age. But religion refuses to die out. Despite whatever goodies science throws at humanity, we refuse to let go of our religious roots. Magic died out as society progressed, now surviving mostly in African tribes. But not religion. The reason behind this merits serious thought. I will come back to it but before that, I want to raise an often raised doubt about debating on God.
Whether one believes in God or not, no one can deny that the topic is inflammatory. It can fire and stir human hearts as few other topics can. Men have done great things in the name of religion, and others have equally diabolical in the same name. But that does not lessen the motivation behind the truly marvelous deeds. Think of what I call the faith of Lincoln. Lincoln took the decision to not to cede to the demands of Southern States and went ahead with abolishing slavery. It plunged America into the Civil War, crippling life and engulfing men. It wasn't a very popular or economically sound decision. But Lincoln believed it was a moral one. He lived in a small house at the outskirts of Washington with just a Bible. Lincoln suffered with severe depression, and yet was able to save America from partition and became their greatest president. I strongly doubt he would have accomplished half as much without his faith. What about Mother Teresa? Robert Schuller? If I prove that there is no God, they will lose their motivation and humanity will suffer. What's bad if a lie makes everybody smile?
God serves as a reference frame in this fast changing world, otherwise governed by the principle of rat race - survival of the fittest. It is this contrast that makes God indispensable. Maybe God is just a personification of our inner moral compass. Personally, I endorse this view. I think everybody has his own personal God. Much like a guardian angel. To accommodate so many Gods, their powers would have to be toned down. However, this slope is slippery and it is better to walk with caution, lest I confuse myself with something eloquent yet meaningless. (An example which fooled me - True Gods must be silent. It's catchy, but stupid. You say it with beaming pride, and end up looking stupid.) Coming back to the topic, I think this is why humanity hasn't been able to let go of its Gods even after advancing to the next level of understanding nature. But in order to decide if the human race can live without the concept of God, it is imperative to answer the following question - what is the relation between God and morality? Will we as a society be less or more moral with no Gods peeking at us from the Heavens? I align with the less moral view. Without a God who sees and judges everybody, the only remaining parameter to base decisions will be survival, an inherently selfish concept. It will be like the Wild West, where the Man With No Name can come to your town and kill you just out of fancy.
Living in communities and the ensuing Division of Labor are the basic tenets of human progress. So, survival needs men to group together. Take example of a small primitive group. But as soon as a group is formed, comrades become competitors. Now, survival dictates them to outfox others to grow - to get the better partner, to get more resources. So, people resort to hitting below the belt - to gain that extra edge. However, if somebody tamper too much, there are two possibilities. If they are too numerous, the community will shatter else the miscreants will be thrown out . Either way, they will be forced to go alone against this big, bad world. And they definitely don't want that. So, they need to strike a balance between their greed and the general good. Here is where religion comes into picture.
I guess this post has dragged on for too long. But in order to be fair to the mammoth topic I have chose, much remains to be said-particularly on the social design theme. So, I have split this post into two. Wait for the next one. :))
PS: Most of the ideas presented here are a result of discussions with my friend, Jitin Gupta.
