So, what do I write about after more than a year’s hiatus? Well, it’s going to be another religious blog. But no, this is not going to be just another piece that wants to bash either side for the heck of it. This is what I am writing to myself. To provoke my consciousness, and probably remind me of what I thought of the whole process on this particular day and age, of my swing between atheism and agnosticism. When I say agnosticism, it’s more towards atheism and more about why things are the way they are and about a sense of belonging that is still hard to totally get rid of (I know I don’t make much sense here, but so does religion).
What makes us have such a misplaced trust in religion? Why is it the only area of hope? Most people have placed the argument of a mental satisfaction and sense of calm arising out of religion. But that is because you have trained it in that particular way. Evolution says that even without religion we would think on the same lines and have the same values. (Now, those who say that there is no evolution and that the earth is 6000 years old and all the fossils were planted there can stop reading here. I am not even talking to you. You are beyond hope and I really admire you for your profound dumbness). And no one can answer this better than Dawkins in his god delusion. I have always thought about how we would behave without law and order which he talks about in his book. We are basically ethical beings, who want to protect our gene and this is actually the basis of altruism. Hence, we don’t need religion to be good. Rather, we can use religion to be evil. Like jihad, religious violence, witch-hunting, sati, killing for apostasy and so many other things that make a bottomless list.
You say that god is all-powerful, has the knowledge of the past, the present and the future. But excuse me, what are we doing here with our lives? Richard Dawkins put forward this argument in his book that god can’t be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If he is omniscient, he has an all pervading knowledge that makes him realize our future. But at that very moment he ceases to be omnipotent, because he is not potentially changing anything that happens in the future, because he already knows that how it is going to happen due to his omniscience. Even assuming that there is a god and that he is omniscient, what is his purpose in creating life and letting it flourish in all directions, but still knowing everything that is going to happen to them. What is the fun? Unless he is a megalomaniac trying to display his power, this is not a very intelligent thing to do. Or he is so childish that he is playing ‘world’ in his spare time? (Spare time from what?) And to think of it, he does not even have other gods to show off to! Another analogy, under the assumption that there is a god and he is omniscient, is that is he knows all then future and everything that is going to happen, then what is the use of us praying to him? Since, he already has a predetermined course, your prayer is of no consequence in his master-plan. And assuming that your prayer is heeded, why would a god whom you portray as an embodiment of perfection, choose you over someone who is much more deserving, and has worked harder to reach that level. If he does that, I don’t think great of a god who values your devotion to him higher than the hard work required to achieve it. I see a megalomaniacal person on the brink of bigotry. You can ask me, ‘what is the purpose of life?’ It’s mind-blowing and simple. There is no purpose in life. Life was a random chemical accident. Well, not exactly random since statisticians will be quick to point out that randomness is not random. Ok, chemical accident. Probably you were told that you have a greater purpose in life so that you don’t ‘randomly’ kill yourself. I think that life runs for survival and survival runs for life. That’s the perfect couple there.
Throughout our parables and mythology, we have come across gods who are less than perfect. They fight, they kill each other, cheat their enemies, destroy enemy families, are jealous, sometimes cowardly and other such attributes that I would not associate with someone I am supposed to worship. Well, why should I? This also brings us to an interesting aspect. You cannot deny the above mentioned attributes, since they are recorded. You cannot also ask me to neglect such aspects and concentrate on just higher philosophies, because they are based on these basic facts. The whole story of the god’s imperfection, their constant bickering with each other and them trying to propagate their ideology has an uncanny resemblance to contemporary kings. I am greatly persuaded to believe that the great philosophers and writers who wrote down the scriptures merely reflected the persona of the society they were living in. It could be a tribute to the various kings who guided the life and their conquests. Another aspect that points towards this is the morals and the kind of living that pervaded in the society, which is reflected in the books. They just put forward what was best according to them. Though we conveniently neglect theses irregularities and say that times have changed, we still retain the god aspect of it. In reality, we have regressed more into the ritualistic aspect of it.
It s totally not right to base our life on some Stone Age and bronze ages books. Take the Vedas for example. The scholars who have done extensive research on them give an estimated date of 1500 BC for the earliest of them, the Rig Veda. Some other proponents of Out of India Theory date even back by a couple of millennia. And our very own Vedic philologers give an estimate of of 10000 to 15000 BC for them. More the reason to lose faith in these texts, which are nothing but hymns in praise of the celestial Agni, Indra, Vayu, Ashwinis and prescribe methods for animal and other ritualistic sacrifices. I think this is totally unacceptable since what we are doing is precisely praying to nature. Why don’t you guys pray to electricity, magnetism, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes? They are also a part of nature and deserve their rightful status in front of the wind god, fire god, lightning god and rain god. It’s because there was no electricity or magnetism in the minds of the ‘authors’ then. This proves my point right that the texts are contemporary worship manuals. I think most present day pious people will be offended to hear that it contains a whole chapter on soma, which was predominantly known to be psychosomatic. If not that, at least a mind-altering drug. Even conservatively assuming that all they did was produce extreme mental stimulation and high sense of alertness, it can still be associated with banned stimulants like steroids. The Brahmins were said to have used them in their study and temples prepared them on a regular basis. And one theory even talks about the movement of Mesopotamians to India because of the abundance of soma there. So going by today’s standards, I can’t use them. This is just another example to show that these books are contemporary literature and contains what the society believed in.
The Vedas are also said to be sanatana and apurusheya, meaning eternal and not man-made. The explanation is that every time the universe is destroyed and created anew, Brahma hands it over to the next set of people. So in the sense, they don’t have a beginning. So, why doesn’t he make that special appearance once again and solve this problem once and for all. Again, we are said that the Vedic society was virtuous and we are in kali yuga and god does not set foot on this dump anymore, other than to destroy it. Well, going by present day standards, we can’t call them very virtuous. They practiced ritualistic animal sacrifice, used hallucinogens/stimulants, practiced rampant polygamy, polyandry and above all had a flourishing caste system, which people placed in high regard. Religious practitioners (aka rishis) cursed and turned people to stones without any remorse, regret or regulations (supposedly). Kings could take anyone to be their concerts and sex was out in the damn open. The society which considers premarital sex immoral and multiple sexual partners in a lifetime as a great immorality needs to take a peek at the Vedic society that practiced that, before calling them the best of times. The whole point of the above tirade was to question the sanctity of these Bronze Age (Iron gets mentioned only in the later day yajur veda) texts and their dominance of our lives.
Now, what about karma? I don’t have any need to go into the specifics of karma. Why would you want to believe in such a concept? Because you were told to? Imagine your dad keeps beating you all the time, but will not tell you why he is doing that. So, you keep thinking that you are being whacked for something you did wrong, but don’t know what (unless your dad is a weirdo or sadomasochistic bastard). Imagine you become amnesiac sometime in your life. Imagine that you are incarcerated for the rest of your life for some crime you did before you lost your mind. That would be some good ‘purpose of life’, wouldn’t it? Or even imagine a 75 year old man incarcerated for a rape he committed when he was 18. There is no point. That’s the same with karma. It’s stupid to be punished for what you did in your previous birth, even if something like that exists. I rest my case.
P.S. I haven’t capitalized god deliberately. And I have a lot more to write, but not in this one.
What makes us have such a misplaced trust in religion? Why is it the only area of hope? Most people have placed the argument of a mental satisfaction and sense of calm arising out of religion. But that is because you have trained it in that particular way. Evolution says that even without religion we would think on the same lines and have the same values. (Now, those who say that there is no evolution and that the earth is 6000 years old and all the fossils were planted there can stop reading here. I am not even talking to you. You are beyond hope and I really admire you for your profound dumbness). And no one can answer this better than Dawkins in his god delusion. I have always thought about how we would behave without law and order which he talks about in his book. We are basically ethical beings, who want to protect our gene and this is actually the basis of altruism. Hence, we don’t need religion to be good. Rather, we can use religion to be evil. Like jihad, religious violence, witch-hunting, sati, killing for apostasy and so many other things that make a bottomless list.
You say that god is all-powerful, has the knowledge of the past, the present and the future. But excuse me, what are we doing here with our lives? Richard Dawkins put forward this argument in his book that god can’t be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If he is omniscient, he has an all pervading knowledge that makes him realize our future. But at that very moment he ceases to be omnipotent, because he is not potentially changing anything that happens in the future, because he already knows that how it is going to happen due to his omniscience. Even assuming that there is a god and that he is omniscient, what is his purpose in creating life and letting it flourish in all directions, but still knowing everything that is going to happen to them. What is the fun? Unless he is a megalomaniac trying to display his power, this is not a very intelligent thing to do. Or he is so childish that he is playing ‘world’ in his spare time? (Spare time from what?) And to think of it, he does not even have other gods to show off to! Another analogy, under the assumption that there is a god and he is omniscient, is that is he knows all then future and everything that is going to happen, then what is the use of us praying to him? Since, he already has a predetermined course, your prayer is of no consequence in his master-plan. And assuming that your prayer is heeded, why would a god whom you portray as an embodiment of perfection, choose you over someone who is much more deserving, and has worked harder to reach that level. If he does that, I don’t think great of a god who values your devotion to him higher than the hard work required to achieve it. I see a megalomaniacal person on the brink of bigotry. You can ask me, ‘what is the purpose of life?’ It’s mind-blowing and simple. There is no purpose in life. Life was a random chemical accident. Well, not exactly random since statisticians will be quick to point out that randomness is not random. Ok, chemical accident. Probably you were told that you have a greater purpose in life so that you don’t ‘randomly’ kill yourself. I think that life runs for survival and survival runs for life. That’s the perfect couple there.
Throughout our parables and mythology, we have come across gods who are less than perfect. They fight, they kill each other, cheat their enemies, destroy enemy families, are jealous, sometimes cowardly and other such attributes that I would not associate with someone I am supposed to worship. Well, why should I? This also brings us to an interesting aspect. You cannot deny the above mentioned attributes, since they are recorded. You cannot also ask me to neglect such aspects and concentrate on just higher philosophies, because they are based on these basic facts. The whole story of the god’s imperfection, their constant bickering with each other and them trying to propagate their ideology has an uncanny resemblance to contemporary kings. I am greatly persuaded to believe that the great philosophers and writers who wrote down the scriptures merely reflected the persona of the society they were living in. It could be a tribute to the various kings who guided the life and their conquests. Another aspect that points towards this is the morals and the kind of living that pervaded in the society, which is reflected in the books. They just put forward what was best according to them. Though we conveniently neglect theses irregularities and say that times have changed, we still retain the god aspect of it. In reality, we have regressed more into the ritualistic aspect of it.
It s totally not right to base our life on some Stone Age and bronze ages books. Take the Vedas for example. The scholars who have done extensive research on them give an estimated date of 1500 BC for the earliest of them, the Rig Veda. Some other proponents of Out of India Theory date even back by a couple of millennia. And our very own Vedic philologers give an estimate of of 10000 to 15000 BC for them. More the reason to lose faith in these texts, which are nothing but hymns in praise of the celestial Agni, Indra, Vayu, Ashwinis and prescribe methods for animal and other ritualistic sacrifices. I think this is totally unacceptable since what we are doing is precisely praying to nature. Why don’t you guys pray to electricity, magnetism, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes? They are also a part of nature and deserve their rightful status in front of the wind god, fire god, lightning god and rain god. It’s because there was no electricity or magnetism in the minds of the ‘authors’ then. This proves my point right that the texts are contemporary worship manuals. I think most present day pious people will be offended to hear that it contains a whole chapter on soma, which was predominantly known to be psychosomatic. If not that, at least a mind-altering drug. Even conservatively assuming that all they did was produce extreme mental stimulation and high sense of alertness, it can still be associated with banned stimulants like steroids. The Brahmins were said to have used them in their study and temples prepared them on a regular basis. And one theory even talks about the movement of Mesopotamians to India because of the abundance of soma there. So going by today’s standards, I can’t use them. This is just another example to show that these books are contemporary literature and contains what the society believed in.
The Vedas are also said to be sanatana and apurusheya, meaning eternal and not man-made. The explanation is that every time the universe is destroyed and created anew, Brahma hands it over to the next set of people. So in the sense, they don’t have a beginning. So, why doesn’t he make that special appearance once again and solve this problem once and for all. Again, we are said that the Vedic society was virtuous and we are in kali yuga and god does not set foot on this dump anymore, other than to destroy it. Well, going by present day standards, we can’t call them very virtuous. They practiced ritualistic animal sacrifice, used hallucinogens/stimulants, practiced rampant polygamy, polyandry and above all had a flourishing caste system, which people placed in high regard. Religious practitioners (aka rishis) cursed and turned people to stones without any remorse, regret or regulations (supposedly). Kings could take anyone to be their concerts and sex was out in the damn open. The society which considers premarital sex immoral and multiple sexual partners in a lifetime as a great immorality needs to take a peek at the Vedic society that practiced that, before calling them the best of times. The whole point of the above tirade was to question the sanctity of these Bronze Age (Iron gets mentioned only in the later day yajur veda) texts and their dominance of our lives.
Now, what about karma? I don’t have any need to go into the specifics of karma. Why would you want to believe in such a concept? Because you were told to? Imagine your dad keeps beating you all the time, but will not tell you why he is doing that. So, you keep thinking that you are being whacked for something you did wrong, but don’t know what (unless your dad is a weirdo or sadomasochistic bastard). Imagine you become amnesiac sometime in your life. Imagine that you are incarcerated for the rest of your life for some crime you did before you lost your mind. That would be some good ‘purpose of life’, wouldn’t it? Or even imagine a 75 year old man incarcerated for a rape he committed when he was 18. There is no point. That’s the same with karma. It’s stupid to be punished for what you did in your previous birth, even if something like that exists. I rest my case.
P.S. I haven’t capitalized god deliberately. And I have a lot more to write, but not in this one.
