Do we need a 'God'?

"Religion was born when the first charlatan met the first fool on the earth."

—Voltaire

The Socratic method of dialectics works quite well when one strives to solve some conundrums that baffle one's mind. John Stuart Mill had emphasized on the need for freedom of speech and expression. The outcome of such a freedom in a civilized environment is dialectics—the method which leads one to the 'truth'. And what is 'truth'? There is almost nothing known as the 'absolute truth' or a 'universal truth'. Perhaps, one thing that is absolute is change. Otherwise, the 'universality' of an idea can contested on the very premise that the word 'universal' itself is an abstraction. The term 'universally established principles' is used for some discourses, which have been recognized and accepted by a large number of individuals or an influential body of individuals on this very planet Earth. In fact, man doesn't even know the exact expanse of the universe, for want of better technology. In such a scenario, it becomes highly questionable how the followers of a particular religion can so fanatically and zealously adhere to a particular set of beliefs as to exhibit elitism, a condescending attitude towards the followers of other religions and xenophobia.

I happened to ponder, yet again, over religion and such other related topics after I had numerous discussions with a number of friends—the utility of dialectics. I have also had the honour of reading an essay written by Bhagat Singh during the days he was incarcerated for breaking the laws (implemented by a handful of Englishmen who presumed that they were on a 'civilizing mission', and created by their counterparts lodged comfortably overseas while basking in the comforts of the home charges). His essay titled "Why I am an Atheist" has had a deep impact on my thoughts. I've also read "The Kingdom of God is within You" by Leo Tolstoy. Then, I had in front of me the examples of famous agnostics—Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Khushwant Singh, to name a few. Meanwhile critics cannot attack my views (which I'll present in the upcoming paragraphs) on the basis of the reasoning that I haven't gone through the works of great believers. I've read "The Story of My Experiments with Truth" (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). I realized that the synergy that Gandhi felt exists between morality and the existence of a God ('Ram' for him), i.e., a Supreme Soul, can very well be explained differently—without ascribing morality to an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient power which keeps a watchful eye over his creation. While countering immorality with deterrence through fear of otherwise attracting the wrath of a God may have a utilitarian value, to me it is a sign of lack of confidence in one's own abilities of bonafide judgment.

The Idea of 'God'

A friend of mine, who is studying to become a doctor, suggested to me that God must be there. If it weren't for him, the chaos in this world would be multiple times the present level. I felt that while he vociferously pressed on this point, it was a very knave thing to be averred. If there was a Supreme Being or a God, he wouldn't have allowed injustice in this world. The burning alive of a Jordanian pilot by the fighters of the Islamic State (who, interestingly, claim that their actions are based on their own interpretation of the Islamic religion) would have been prevented, had there been a God. If he didn't purposely prevent, is he a sadist? And if he couldn't, then he isn't Supreme. It is incomprehensible to me why certain individuals commit barbaric and heinous crimes in the name of this very God. Is that too part of the very script created by him?

The proponents of 'karma' can offer that the pilot might have received this treatment because of his actions in this life or the previous life. It is a fantastic belief and there is no conclusive evidence of it. While this metaphysical concept of birth cycles and rebirth is a very fancy explanation of certain phenomenon and I too do not contest (even if I do not personally subscribe to) this view, there seems to be no reason to adhere to another belief—the existence of a God who regulates and controls all the happenings in this world. This dual belief, to me, pulls one into the gossamer of beliefs and abstractions—for supporting which, no empirical evidence can be advanced.

My personal experience, so far, has been that the rhetoric of 'turning unbelievers into believers'—by the exhibition of miracles—is nothing but a figment of people's hyperactive imagination. A common man usually starts believing in something when some empirical evidence is presented to support a certain assertion. And this work of presentation of such evidences can very well be 'doctored' or 'engineered' to one's convenience. The fundamental basis of all this is the human mind's extraordinary capability to recognize patterns among ordinary occurrences. So, half the work of entrapment into this belief about the presence of a Divine is done by a person's own mind. The other half of the work involves the creation of an enabling environment—an aura or a Gramscian hegemony—which ascribes those 'miracles' to this 'Supreme Being'. My answer to all such 'converts' is that if one is so fickle as to start believing in a thing just because of lack of a better explanation for such 'miracles', one's previous conviction isn't strong enough. A 'miracle' is something that had been hitherto unseen and unheard of or unverified by some globally-recognized enlightened individuals. An absence of an explanation for such a phenomenon is no cogent reason to infer that a God has been behind such an act.

Religion—the pathway to 'God'

'Natural science' also works on certain assumptions, as has been pointed out by Thomas Kuhn. Thus, there is nothing absolute—for these assumptions are nothing but beliefs that simplification of problems would not deter us very much from the path of truth. In this context, I try to present the definition of 'religion' the way I perceive it.

'Religion' is a set of beliefs adhered to by a certain individual or a group of individuals to provide sails to their boat in this ocean called life. Religion, as a way of life, helps one to achieve nearness to 'God' by following a righteous path.

Inasmuch as religion is used to convey a meaning of a well-defined and collectively-accepted set of beliefs to lead a righteous life, I have no problem. Personally, even I adhere to certain principles of conduct and some people, if they feel the need for nomenclature, may call it my 'religion'. In this, I find the Shakespearean dictum—"What's in a name? That which you call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"—an apt one.

What I am against, however, is commercialization of religion with a view to achieve vested interests and monetary gains. The very idea of ornament-clad stone idols "drinking" milk and honey (things which are a luxury, even while dreaming, to a substantial number of Indians) conveys to me a crystal-clear picture of a few charlatans' connivance with some selfish intelligentsia. In the past, I myself have witnessed unabashed displays of 'religion' and almost-extortion in the name of Gods—in Kalighat temple of Kolkata, in Vishwanath temple of Varanasi, in Mansa Devi temple of Haridwar, in the Dargah of 'Ghareeb Nawaz' in Ajmer, and many more. If a Bollywood movie by the name of "Oh My God" targets this facade of the godmen, I think it is a splendid use of the freedom of speech and expression to pull out the Indian society from the clutches of medieval dogma. What the tricksters cash in on is fear that is inherent among the people. And this fear has to be reinforced through establishment of the hegemony of ignorance. What's worse is that a certain section of the electronic media dedicates half-hour shows to create sensationalism and boost its TRPs. These half-hour shows have no dearth of religious pundits trying to tear the society by the fangs of medievalism.

Another aspect, which I would like to analyse, is religious chauvinism and fanaticism. Let me present my case systematically. It is said that religion is a pathway to a 'God'. Had there been different Gods, there would have been chaos as to who should have a supremacy over the creation (in my opinion, I exhibit an outright denial of any functional specialization ascribed to different Gods as propounded by the Hindu mythology). Thus, God can be a single power. And this should be true about all religions. Thus, in essence, all religions should lead to that 'God'. Continuing with this line of reasoning, all religions must agree on certain basic points. The question is—if all religions have the same goal and if they have many (if not all) common points, why is there a need to present the followers of certain religions as antagonistic to others? Xenophobia propagated by extremists signifies only one thing—the desire to achieve material gains and power by fanning mutual hatred through the use of jargon such as "love jihad". Such tendencies should be jettisoned from the fabric of a country that proclaims to have a secular polity.

Let me make an honest confession. I was born in a family, which has the 'Brahmin' social identity ascribed to it. While I still bear the same affection towards my family as most others would have towards theirs, I am in no way 'proud' of 'being a Brahmin'. In fact, I do not even care about which community I was born in. I believe that I, as a human being, am endowed with wisdom and I do not need to subscribe to preordained communities to life a harmonious life. While religious fanatics might hold Macaulay's education and "western ideas" responsible for my line of thinking, I am satisfied that atleast I do not treat others as means to an end; rather, I consider each person an end in himself/herself. And although I personally do not approve of Valentine's Day and the increasing craze about Valentine's Week in India in the recent years (all thanks to globalization), I do not consider it my right to resort to moral policing of others due to some misplaced notions about conservation of Hinduism and the "Hindu culture" loitering around in my head. What exacerbates the situation is the indulgence of certain religious-cum-political leaders, prophets, 'sadhus', 'sadhvis', 'maharajas', etc., in 'mazhab ki siyaasi dukaandaari' (political trade in the garb of religion). These godmen even intrude into the private sphere of families and individuals, e.g., their advices on how much children the women belonging to a certain religion must bear.

Can any religion sanction the killing of innocent people perceived to be 'unbelievers'? If it does, then I dare say that it better be thrown to the dogs. 'Boko Haram'—"western education is a sin"—is a brainchild of those aspiring to establish a kingdom based on the fundamental tenet of ignorance. And to enforce this ignorance, the use of terror is resorted to.

What is required is a thoughtful deconstruction of such tactics to understand the ulterior motives involved. At the same time, there is a need to positively channelize the energy of the youth in a society. The cocktail of dissatisfaction and romanticism may otherwise lead them to become the foot-soldiers of some pseudo-messiah, which will eventually be carcinogenic to the whole idea of India as a nation.