Atheism as a Religion

These days, atheism is quite the fad. Many young people take to atheism because they are fed up with the dogma and fanatism that is usually associated with traditional religions. They turn to atheism which is generally associated with Science, which in turn has an aura of being fair, rational, open, progressive, reliable and useful. Before we go into the details of why this trend and perception is based on incorrect information (by an atheist's own standard), let's quickly define some of the terms that we would want to use extensively in our discussion.

fanatism / fanaticism = excessive intolerance of opposing views

atheism = rejection of belief in the existence of phenomena that are beyond observation through the senses or explanation by logic and/or science

religion = a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe which serves its followers as both the a guide in the quest for truth and a handbook for right living. As explained in Role of Religion, a third aspect of religion is by which many followers derive a sense of identity or exclusivity.

science = originally, a body of knowledge that is established through systematic study and experimentation, and that can be reliably used. Later, it came to refer to some specific fields of knowledge, which admitted only the evidence that may be captured directly through the five senses, or inferred indirectly from it. By this narrower definition, the scope of science is considerably reduced to what was previously referred to as physical science and excludes many useful and highly systematic fields such as pure mathematics

At the heart of any religion is its faith, which is a set of core beliefs based on which it defines, arrives at, and expounds the Truth, which it might further use to explain other phenomena, observable or otherwise. Further, a religion sets forth to its followers, certain methods and techniques which may be followed to reach the Truth as defined in its faith. We say atheism is a religion (or some may define it as a group or religions to account for internal differences in opinion), primarily because it is very similar to established religions in both these aspects. The core faith of atheism is in a universe that can be fully described by science in its narrow definition - in other words, a universe that has no influence that is beyond direct observations or logical inferences from them. This idea, though is drastically different from the core of most traditional religions which emphasize on the spiritual aspect of life and even use it as a starting point to explain the observable universe, is still a fundamental faith in atheist philosophy. Much like any other religion, it is by relying on this core of faith that the atheist seeks to uncover the Truth of this universe.

Based on its core faith, which is the validity and universal applicability of science and logic, the Atheistic religion provides as its own way, the scientific method and the way of logical reasoning. Of course, this does not prevent other religions which explore a spiritual aspect also from using science, or its methods, for explaining the physically observable realm of this universe. In fact, the origin of science as we know today can be traced back to the truth-seeking efforts of its very religious pioneers in the ages when seekers of knowledge in the physical realm where not dogmatically convinced that there is no truth beyond it. Many of the theistical religions also share Atheism's liking for science, but at the same time understand its self-imposed limitation of dealing only with the objects of the five senses, and employ equally rigorous and systematic methods in dealing with subtler realms. In believing that logic and science can answer all questions about the universe, and in rejecting anything that doesn't fit into logic as false, science and logic perhaps take the position as chief Gods in the Atheist pantheon. This is not strikingly different from other religions which consider god as being love, bliss, truth, virtue, or an embodiment of such virtues or their combinations.

Religion, by itself, is not dogmatic or fanatic, and nor is Atheism. Followers of many religions, on the other hand, are often found to assert, quite fanatically, that their way and perception of the truth is the one and only one - all else being falsehood leading to hell. This, as observed in the Role of Religion, is a negation of the true spirit of any religion. Atheism also has a fair share of such blockheaded followers and they have their own prophets who insult the ideas of other religions and blame them for all the evils in the society. They think of themselves (and other atheists) as a separate class of people who are higher and more intelligent than the followers of other religions - so much, that they consider their convictions to be above all other religions, free from their faults, and as the only path that can lead to the Truth or promote harmonious existence. To think of one's own path to be the true path is okay; but insulting others who do not follow it is the most obnoxious face of dogma, and it is not less so when displayed by an Atheist. The worst enemy of any religion are not its critics but its own followers who would, rather than understand its true essence and apply it to enrich their lives, attempt to attack and prove other religions wrong.

It can be seen in the history of many religions that they started off as being the oppressed, and at a later point became the oppressor themselves. For example, Jesus Christ was persecuted for what he believed and preached, and the Church which claimed to follow and represent him persecuted many in later ages for not falling in line with their beliefs (or using this as an excuse). There have been times when followers of Science, such as Galileo, have been persecuted by intolerant followers of powerful theistical religions; the way Science is being hijacked by some equally intolerant followers of Atheism, the day may not be far away when we read of Scientific Inquisition and Jihad being advocated by the proponents of this new religion. Persecution, abuse and intolerance of differing ideas is not the property of any religion, but of people who seek to achieve and maintain power over others. Even if we abolish the use of the term religion altogether (its essence cannot be abolished for as long as humans have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge), such people would find other means to control and dominate others, as we have seen in the case of many Communist regimes.

So in all the three most common aspects of religion, we see that Atheism is just like any other religion (or may turn out to be a group of them as the number of its followers increases). Like we classify some religions as monotheistical and polytheistical, perhaps a higher level of classification into theistical and atheistical religions will make sense. But I don't see any reason (yes, reason is not a prerogative of atheists) to subscribe to the views of many an atheist that atheism is not a religion, but something above and beyond it.

Role of Religion

Religion, it seems to me, came into existence as a result of man's search for an inner meaning and purpose of life. The beginning was, presumably, man's inability to understand many natural processes and hence ascribing them to a higher power - to be feared and to be venerated. Over centuries (or millenniums), this fear of an unknown God transformed into diverse forms, from love for a personal God to forthright denial of any divine influence. Many of these lines of reasoning that gained considerable acceptance and following came to be identified as religions; proponents of these ideologies became their prophets. The primary purpose of religion, thus, is to throw light on the nature of Truth and show the way that leads there.

Since the path to enlightenment is fraught with dangers and distractions, many religions also laid down a code for their followers which, incidentally, had a civilizing effect on man as he emerged the most powerful species on earth. In spite of all his progress and unassailable might, he still remained accountable to a superior force, or to a set of principles. These principle reflect the common sense and wisdom acquired and refined over generations, and often serve as a handbook for right living. In setting common standards on what is acceptable and what is not, religion is like the conscience of a people. The comparison to conscience should drive home the point that religious code, unlike laws of the land, are not enforceable, and is only a guide to those who wish to abide by it for their own benefit. However, if a majority subscribe to certain religious views, the law of the land might naturally be influenced by the tenets of this religion. This has possibly been the most basic role of religion as affecting common man, though not its deepest purpose.

The third aspect of religion, which I think was the last to develop and is in fact an undoing of the other two, has come to be its dominant function in today's world. This is the sense of identity it gives to its followers. Followers of a religion A consider themselves as distinct from followers of another religion B, and as having altogether different (verging on mutually exclusive) interests. This 'avatar' of religion stems from man's sense of insecurity and fear of being outnumbered in an unfriendly world. It is only for those who fail to understand the first two aspects of religion, that the third one assumes importance. For, if I realize that the spiritual goal of all religions is the same, how can I view them as being antagonistic to each other? If I can absorb the social message of religion to live in harmony with others, then how can I hate those who think differently from myself?

We have different religions, because the path to God is not unique. To each one, his own path appears best, because that is most suitable for him. Having grown up in the Hindu culture, I have no difficulty in accepting the Father-God of Christianity, the monotheism of Islam, the Sun-God of the Incas, or other manifestations of the unmanifest God that are celebrated by different religions across the world. I see no irony that the infinite God is present in the most tiny particle of matter (even as he pervades the vast emptiness of this universe) and hence can be worshiped in the form of an idol. I don't find a contradiction that the impersonal God can take the personal form of Jesus Christ or Sri Krishna. In a single text of Hinduism, you will find a number of different paths being advocated at different places and unless you are able to appreciate their underlying oneness, you will be thoroughly confused. The Path of Devotion (Bhakthi) may appear more different from the Path of Wisdom (Jnana) than Islam is from Christianity. The stupidity of people who have all looked into the same kaleidoscope and are fighting with each other regarding the 'actual' design it 'holds' is unfathomable! If they cannot understand that the same light, reflecting in different ways, gives rise to the multifarious images seen in a kaleidoscope, why don't they at least stop fighting and just enjoy the beauty of the design that each is able to see?

What Is True Freedom?

Previously on avalokanam, we saw what is not true freedom, which also provided some insight into what constitutes true freedom. To build further on this discussion, let's start by defining freedom to be the ability to make choices and follow those choices. For an alcoholic, the decision to drink is not a choice, but a compulsion. So in this case we don't consider his action to be free. But then, for a person who is good by nature, helping another man in need is also the natural thing to do, and it is not much of a choice. Most of our actions are guided by our nature, and there is very little freedom of choice involved. 

I may say I have the freedom to drink orange juice or apple juice, but almost always the decision is based on which one I like more. If I like Orange juice more, I may have it each time. And then, when I get tired of it, I will have apple juice - not because I choose to have it, but because I've got tired of the other option. So is this really freedom? 

Philosophers typically consider the next level of freedom as the ability to alter your predisposition. For example, if you have a natural preference for alcohol, but by sheer force of will have fruit juice instead, over time you would alter your natural tendency. This looks more like freedom. But here again, is the decision to change your liking for alcohol freely chosen, or can it be ascribed to a predisposition? It is really hard to say. The Lord says in the Gita, 

सदृशं चेष्टते स्वस्या: प्रकृतेर्ज्ञानवानापि 

प्रकृतिं यन्ति भूतानि निग्रह: किं करिष्यति 

Even the knowledgeable person acts according to his nature. All beings follow their nature, and what does resistance achieve?

So this discussion of freedom brings us down to the question of whether there is free will or not. This is an age-old question, and all who have engaged in this debate have ended up more confused than when they started. It is pointless to discuss this question from a purely logical standpoint, because it is logically impossible to decide it one way or the other without making an equivalent assumption as the premise to build your arguments on. So I will take my own view on what to think about this conundrum. Of course, my views have been profoundly influenced by Indian thought that goes back to a few millenniums ago. (If you are a determinist, you could think of this as my predisposition, and accept or forgive it based on your own!)

I think our will was all free to start with, like a space craft in empty space. But once we fire the engine and get our craft moving in any direction, it gains a momentum in that direction and this is our predisposition. Of course, we could use more power to either increase the speed of the craft in the same direction, change its course, or reverse its direction. But the more the current momentum of the craft, the more difficult it is to bring about a change. So our freedom actually depends on two factors - the current momentum of the craft (which is the strength of our habits and natural tendencies) and the thrust of our engine (which is what we call will power). If our will is strong enough, we would be able to choose our course in spite of strong tendencies that try to hijack our ship. Also, even with very small power, we would be able to retain control of our ship, provided we don't let the momentum rise beyond a certain level. 

Fine, so let's say we have this freedom. Then what? If we can fly our space craft in any direction we want, but do not know where we want to get (much less, how), of what use is a high-thrust engine? Similarly, without wisdom to guide, free will is not of much use. So, what is most important is to let our will be guided by wisdom. Then, though we may now be going in the wrong direction and don't have sufficient thrust to reverse the velocity immediately, we can at least slow down, and in due time correct our course. The nature of this wisdom and how we can depend on it will be the subject of another post.

Dispelling the Delusion of Freedom

In a previous post, an attempt was made to hint at the subjective nature of freedom, and how it is often a trade-off between freedom and stability or security. I hope it also brought out the point that often there is no direct relation between freedom (as meant in common usage) and happiness. Having said so much, one might still be of the opinion that freedom is still a much more desirable state than a stable, secure existence that curtails your choices. Of course, even those who subscribe to such views prefer to live in civilized societies that have laws limiting personal freedom, rather than in lawless jungles. But this does not prove that life in a lawless jungle is less desirable - just that they are afraid to embrace it, or don't have what it takes to survive in such an environment. So, fear and limits of personal ability are primary impediments to freedom, again, as interpreted in common usage. When I say in common usage, I mean it as the right to follow ones choices and one's will without the interference of an external agency. External is the operative word in today's definition of freedom. So, though fear and limits of personal ability may prevent you from following your choices, as per the definition, you are still considered free because the only limitations are internal.

Let's look at another case - of a toddler who is fascinated by the idea of jumping into a river, and is stopped by his father. We might view this as the father constraining the personal liberty of his son, but if the child is allowed to jump into the river, he will lose all the control that he has over his life and movement, and will be at the sole mercy of the current. Which is a state of greater freedom? To be not allowed to jump into the river, or to be helplessly swept away by the torrent and drown in it? It is a similar case when parents exercise discipline on their children, such as forbidding them from smoking or consuming alcohol. The current of bad habits are even stronger than than that of the river in the previous example. To say that an alcoholic who is allowed access to alcohol at all times has the freedom to drink as he pleases is as foolish as saying that a ship caught in a storm has been freed from the captains tyranny and is free to follow the wind. Here again, it is clear that external influences (such as that of a parent), though seemingly inimical to freedom in a myopic analysis may, in the long term, be conducive to true freedom. Discipline is the key to true freedom, and even as an external influence, it can aid in developing self control. Many modern-day influences tend to portray such discipline as a chain that curtails freedom, rather than as a prop that bolsters it. 

There are many other subtler influences that enslave our thoughts and action whether we realize it or not. Peer pressure is one such. For example, many women have no better reason to go to work than to not appear less ambitious or accomplished than their peers who pursue a career. At a time when cigarette smoking was considered "cool" or "fashionable", many young men started smoking in spite of the discomfort it caused because they did not want to be considered less stylish than their friends. If your boss asks you to stay late and finish an important assignment, you might realize that you don't have the freedom to leave at will. But if the reason you work late is to please your boss and get a raise or a promotion, it is not as evident that the greed for money or the desire to gratify your ego hold sway over not only your actions, but also your thoughts. It is again due to such influences and our failure to recognize and correct them that our "free media" comes to serve vested interests of the powerful, and democratic governments become puppets in the hands of their corporate masters. 

Freedom, as our society chases after today, is a mirage that leads in the wrong direction. As long as we do not break free from this delusion, real freedom will elude us. Thinking that the threat to our freedom is outside us and trying to address it externally, we have already undone many of our age-old traditions that are conducive to true freedom - much like a pilot who throws out the engine in order to reduce the weight of the aircraft, thereby hoping to increase the range. Instead, if we surrender to the wisdom of our forefathers and subject ourselves to their discipline, we will be opening the doors to true freedom and unending happiness. What is true freedom, and how does Indian culture lead us there? We shall attempt to answer these questions in upcoming posts. 

Arbitrary and Gender Biased Laws In India

What do you call a law that is designed (intentionally or otherwise) as a tool for women to harass their husbands (or male partners)? What do you call a law under which only a man can be charged for a crime that both men and women are perfectly capable of? If your answer is "gender biased", read on. 

What do you call a law that assumes a man guilty before the allegation against him is proved? What do you call a law under which a case can be filed by any woman without any evidence, the charge would be non-bailable, and burden of proof will be on the accused? If your answer is "arbitrary" or "unfair", read on. 

There are several laws in India, today, which satisfy these criteria, and below are a quick snapshot of some of the most widely misused ones among them. 

498A ("Dowry Law") - the foremost among these laws, with numerous cases of misuse reported every week and the Supreme court of India referring to it as "a new legal terrorism". Going against the basic principle of Indian legal system, the accused under this law is presumed guilty until proven innocent. To make matters worse, the charge under this law is also non-bailable. Widely used as a tool of extortion and intimidation by women, there are several thousand men who have been ruined and their families terrorized by this law. Refer this website dedicated to the cause of supporting the victims of this law for more info. 

Domestic Violence Act (2005) - another arbitrary law under which wife/female live-in partners can legally gain tyrannic control over the household. The definition of violence in this law is so expansive that it only takes a woman to feel insulted, for her husband to find himself on the wrong side of the law. Check this page out for more information. 

Law on Sexual Harassment at Workplace - assumes that only women can be harassed, and has provisions that makes it great risk for an organization to even employ women. Under this law, a manager may find himself in trouble if he gives a woman reporting to him work that is too challenging, requires her to work late to finish an important project or puts her in the same team as other members that she doesn't like - because these satisfy the law's definition of "creating a hostile work environment" for women. 

IPC Section 304B - if a woman dies by burns or bodily injury, or in circumstances other than normal within 7 years of her marriage, the husband will be deemed to have caused the death and has the onus to prove his innocence. 

The new laws proposed to prevent crime against women has the potential to find a place in this list not very late after it comes into effect. Rather than protect or empower good women, these laws only serve to weaken the traditional institution of marriage, and sow seeds of discord and distrust between men and women, which will in the long term result in more crimes against women.