The Need to Question God's Existence

A couple of weeks back in one of our local dailies-The Shillong Times- we had a rather articulate writer (and believer) damning Sam Harris's (-an atheist whose article appeared in the same daily a few weeks before his-) assertion that there is no God. Archie Kharpuri did well to reason why he and people like him believe in God. But the grounds on which he sought to do so were at best very simplistic and flimsy and the at least very partisan and convenient. This piece is to dissect what was said and determine the merit of his arguments.

Archie raised the issue of Good and Evil but the question is can he categorize every action and event into good and evil categories that will be universally agreeable? What one consider good in this part of the world may be considered evil in the other part of it. It is a matter of perception. In the words of Shakespeare-"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so". Therefore, the question is not about what is good or bad, but about the desirability of the consequences arising out of an action. We desire certain things to be in a certain way because certain advantages are expected out of them. It is the cultural and religious ethos which influence people's desirability or affinity for certain outcomes and hence, actions. 'Moral Law' is thus a set of desirable actions or codes brought forth by mankind as a result of observation over centuries of existence. For instance, did man learn to eat out of the plate right from day one of his existence? Did man right from the beginning practice monogamy and provide for his children? Did we have democratic form of governance right from the beginning? If your answer is yes, you need to face facts and consult some social historians and anthropologists!! Archie makes the mistake of assuming that the present moral code was handed down from heavens in the present form by an 'Ideal' God and by that logic is in the perfect form now. No need for improvements then to a God gifted instruction set. Right?

Harris referred to the evil acts and the death of thousands in the storm Katrina to question the believer's faith in God. However, some seem unable to grasp the real point. What he sought to center upon was how some believers despite believing in God were forsaken and some were saved. Did the dead believers have less faith then the survivors? If that be the criteria for God to save some and let others die, then doesn't it immediately raise questions about the magnanimity and generosity of this God. Would mankind then not be the same even in the absence of faith in God? Also Archie seems to believe and so do many believers, that 'evil' can be resolved by 'keeping God in the picture'. First, this argument presumes that morality and ethics are the exclusive preserve of believers and that atheist and agnostics love immorality and chaos. Second, his argument implies that 'evil' can be stamped out of man and the world will resemble heaven( whatever this term might connote ).Third, it also implies that believers usually know for certain what is good and what is bad, and if they don't then who decides it for them? Archie's stand can thus be attributed to his implicit faith in scriptures(possibly the Bible or any other holy scripture).His truths, like that of other believers, have their origin in the scriptures which were written and edited by other men over the past few centuries and certainly not handed down from Heaven. Some simpletons might be tempted to argue back that scientific treatises too are written and edited by men. True. However, scientific laws and treatises, unlike scriptures, can be tested and verified and are not considered sacrosanct, which means that they will be tested yet again and restated in the light of a new discovery.

It was also suggested that atheist's stand on the God question arises out of his limited knowledge of the universe, but then doesn't this limitation also apply equally to the believers who are as human as the ordinary atheist. Then how does a believer sense God's existence from utterly infinite universe which is apparently incomprehensible to the atheist and to every other man!! The reason that we have so many religions, let alone the many sects and cults within each, is because of the undeniable fact that God is a conception shaped in the minds of men, for if it were not just a conception we would all have the same idea about Him and would be part of one world-wide religion or fraternity of believers. Can it not be pointed out then that the believer's faith in God arises out of his inherent desire to seek order and purpose in the chaos and infinite world of our existence and to the fear of uncertainty? Now I agree in the same vein that this too applies to the atheist. Certainly it does, but it doesn't take the sheen off this argument. The atheist at least doesn't try to go beyond the fringes of human reasoning and dabble in a subject which is prone to a lot of speculation as does the believer who not only speculates but makes convenient assumptions to validate his speculation, and then makes them the bedrock of this thought and conduct.

Believers also have a fanciful assumption that the pain and suffering in this world can be attributed to the ‘disconnection with God’. Nothing could be more simplistic than this proposition. If one were to think putting one's thinking cap on, one would realize that the pain and suffering arises due to two main entities-Nature and Humans. About nature's whims and fancies we can't do much. On the human front, we must realize that every human being has unique needs and aspirations which sometimes come in conflict with that of others, and being animals in the core we are tempted to resolve it through actions which don't require much thought, and in the process hurt and injure others as well as ourselves. Such needs of man can be attributed to a whole range of factors from man's base instincts to his nationalistic and religious fervour. No reasonable man can claim that believing in God can help man escape this predicament. Escaping this requires insight and sensitivity which can only be developed by a process of self-introspection and by desiring to understand others. Resolving an issue first requires proper understanding of the problem and its roots. Now with believers starting with the given assumption, it can only be left to imagination what their solutions might look and feel like. Their solutions might possibly range from more praying to more faith in God to eliminate the 'disconnect'!! Why do you think a blood seeking ‘jihadi’ blows up others? It is because he first seeks to resolve problems by praying and then realizing it isn’t doing much resorts to blaming it on the non-believers ( people not conforming to his faith ) and so, takes the easy way out. His actions don’t require much thought. If all this while you thought terrorism was just a political problem you couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Archie also questioned the possibility of having a humane society in the absence of faith in God and 'moral absolutes'. It was interesting and also curious to note that Archie sought to quote the words of Nietzsche, an atheist, to justify his claims. Here's fact. According to a survey by BBC a few years ago, in the UK(Great Britain) more than 80% percent people are either atheist or agnostic(or skeptics) whereas in the USA it was the exact opposite-more than 80% had deep faith in God. The question now is, is the UK any worse off than the USA because it has less faith? Until recently religion was prohibited in China because it is ruled by a Communist regime. Despite this China prospered without falling apart, and at a faster pace than India-a God worshipping country. Pakistan and Afghanistan despite being theocratic states are in doldrums. The NE region too has been tackling militancy despite having a mass of believers. So, it certainly proves beyond doubt that presence or absence of faith in God is not at all connected with the development of a progressive and stable society. I wish to clarify here, that I am not a Communist and certainly don't support the curtailment of an individual's right to worship God, as in China.

Even if we were to believe Archie for a moment, then his statement also implies that a god-worshipping society should be peaceful and free from problems. To dispel this myth we need to go back in history to the 'Dark Ages' as in European history when the Church reigned supreme over all Europe. This particular period witnessed killings and bloodshed the scale of which can perhaps only be rivaled by World-War II. People who questioned the Church’s power and its code of ‘moral absolutes’, were subjected to torture and mostly burned at stake .Whenever an epidemic broke out Jews were hounded and mercilessly killed to eradicate disease and appease the Gods, all in name of Righteousness. Those who objected to this were publicly exonerated or killed like those whom they tried to save. During the sad period of the Crusades, European armies(read Christians) backed by the Church, fought countless 'holy' wars with the Arabs(read Muslims) to wrest control of Jerusalem which was the homeland of Arabs. Needless to say millions of ordinary people were killed on both sides. The repercussions of this epic conflict are being felt to this day. I request the readers not to take my words at face-value but consult a standard book on medieval history to verify if what I am saying is true. In the present times, Afghanistan was hammered back to Stone Age by a radical Islamic group called Taliban. The recent killing of ordinary Muslims in the ‘Hindu’ state of Gujarat is still fresh in public memory. Need we say more about the 'merits' of a God worshipping society with 'moral absolutes'. And, yet believers would have us believe that it is only a small minority of extremists among them who are responsible for such acts. Strange then it is that a small minority always spoils the game for the majority of the believers time and again without having their tacit support!!

Most commonplace believers also imagine facing retribution from Him in the absence of faith. If the believer’s faith in God arises out of the fear of retribution from Him then they are believers in the same sense as a child who obliges his parents out of the fear of cane-thrashing, is obedient. How then are we to confront the existence of Jesus, the Buddha and Mohammed and their teachings ? These men were great no doubt They were insightful and wise. However, their lives are shrouded more in myth than fact. Gandhi , Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama , the stalwarts of the Humanist movement in recent times , would have been treated the same way but unfortunately they were born in a more advanced age-the Age of Reason. Myth-making is not a trend these days.

Now, a question arises as to the possibility of eradicating the ills of our society by disbelief in God. I agree that to take the argument this far would be simplifying too much the problem facing us by just pointing the finger at God and his followers. A workable solution perhaps lies in promoting scientific temper coupled with humanism which will be within the grasp of everyman-believers and non-believers alike. It is a myth that atheism centers it thought upon removing God from the scene to lead the way to a more peaceful society. No right-thinking atheist ever suggested that as claimed by Archie. Also, the association of Hitler and Stalin with atheism by Archie, is not only misleading but propagandist. Hitler and Stalin were rogue politicians and not atheists. Atheism has its genesis in man's sense of self-awareness and his power to effect change which started in the right earnest during the Renaissance in Europe when some of our greatest scientists and thinkers began by questioning the power of Church and the existence of God. It was their contributions which paved the way for the modern world today. Not that they had it easy. When scientists like Galileo and Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not the center of the Universe as was widely believed in their times, they were hounded by the Church and its followers. These men were publicly condemned and pressured to take back their findings from the public realm. Nevertheless, truth couldn't be held back for long and it was not long before many myths, which were based upon irrational religious doctrines, were shattered. This later led the way in making Europe an unrivalled economic and political entity because of its scientific and other advancements made during this period. Renaissance was the period of awakening of mankind as widely believed by historians. Some of mankind's greatest works of art, literature and scientific achievements have their origin from this period onwards. It is exactly because of this that other great civilizations of Asia and Africa fell behind because they failed to break-free from the clutch of religious and social doctrines and hence, were later colonized by the Europeans. The potential of scientific reasoning and knowledge was brought forth by the European thinkers. Mankind today has a better chance of survival in the chaos of his existence because of the power of scientific knowledge. It is this power of reasoning and pro-active action that has made the USA what it is today. China is fast replacing it by the same force. However, the prospect and merit of a colonist or a communist regime is a matter of political debate which is for now best left for another day.

Let’s confront another myth - It is only the atheists and agnostics who doubt God’s existence. For answer to this, I would rather ask believers to someday question themselves honestly and sincerely. They will realize that they have long been brushing aside this question under the carpet.

The purpose of this piece is to bring to light the fact that atheism demands the centre-stage for individuality, rationality and free-thinking as against conformism, blind-faith and restricted thinking demanded by religious institutions-the institutions of so called Faith. Not the fault of these institutions really; they wouldn’t survive otherwise!! The conclusion to this piece would be best served by quoting one of greatest philosophers of our time, Bertrand Russell-"We do not believe in God, but we believe in the supremacy of Humanity. We do not believe in life after death, but we believe in immortality through good deeds".

NANO-THE CHEAPEST CAR IN THE WORLD

We in India witnessed a historic moment on 10^th January when Tata Motors unveiled its ‘people’s car’, the car many skeptics ( including myself ) thought was a difficult proposition, if not entirely impossible, at a price tag of Rs. one lakh. Doubts were raised previously as to the build, safety and feasibility of the car, but Tatas have proved us all wrong by turning out a rather wonderful looking car which I hope performs as good as it looks.

As with any other object of public attention, the Nano has fuelled a debate in India among various sections of the public on issues mainly concerning environmental pollution, personal mobility at the cost public transportation, land acquisition for the factory and consumer response to the car among other things. These issues are examined here.

Environmentalists and NGO activists have argued that the Nano will promote greater pollution as it will be the most accessible car to the common public who, it is expected will give a more than favourable welcome to the car. I am of the opinion that this fear is to an extent exaggerated and partisan because as far as pollution is concerned a greater part of it is fuelled by rudimentary domestic and industrial waste disposal. Automobiles contribute a small part to it. With the advancement of ‘cleaner’ engine technology automobiles will contribute still lesser to such pollution. Moreover, the pollution attributed to automobiles is to a significant extent because of loads of antiquated public buses, taxis and auto-rikshaws plying on our roads today. The pollution in this respect can, thus, be cut down drastically by opting for more advanced vehicles such as the CNG taxi and rikshaws which were introduced in Delhi as a result of a Supreme Court directive, and which has reduced air pollution in that city to a great extent as admitted by many today. Nevertheless, environmental conservation is of prime importance but needs to be addressed at the right places where there is a significant lack of it.

It has also been argued by many that Nano is the culmination of the government’s policy of favouring personal transportation at the cost of public transportation. An organized and well-managed public transportation system is a undeniable need of every city and town . This should indeed be the concern of every citizen today and for which we need to take the administration to task. We should, however, be against any move to curtail the need for personal mobility. Any public transport system can at best connect the major transit points and centres of the city but not every nook and corner. There will always be a need to travel far and beyond the major transit centres of the city, and hence personal mobility is as important as the public one. In this respect the Nano has been targeted unfairly by some sections.

As regards land acquisition for the car factory, we as concerned citizens must see to it that land is acquired on a fair and equitable basis. Development and industrialization should not , however, be substituted by agitations with short-sighted purpose of keeping the farmer’s or owner’s right in the land intact against the long-term need to provide new means of income generation and an opportunity to aspire for a better standard of living.

At last we come to the critical question of consumer response and commercial success of the Nano. Despite my amazement at the Tata’s feat of engineering in creating a ‘people’s car’ I still doubt its effectiveness in cracking the middle-class market within our domestic contours. First, we shouldn’t expect all two-wheeler owners to go for the Nano. The two-wheeler is preferred not because it is cheap but because it gives greater mileage and is best for negotiating one’s way in the city traffic. Second, the middle-class consists of a number of income brackets, a great number of which aspire to and can afford to buy better cars. So, Nano will have limited market in this category. Third, we should not mistake public euphoria for public demand as has been proved time and again with many product and services. Fourth, the Nano wouldn’t be available to you and me at exactly Rs one lakh but at a slightly higher price taking into account taxes, insurance charges and inflation effect. Finally, we can expect other car-makers to reduce the price of their offerings so as to tempt the same middle-class buyers to go for a better car at a reduced price.

I have a feeling that Nano will find favour with many taxi operators serving the city public and the increasing number of tourists. Nano could be a commercial success export-wise if it marketed in other emerging economies as was the case in India with Maruti-800 in the yester years. However, Nano-enthusiasts have suggested that it will be a great success story in the domestic circuit as well citing it as a great value proposition. Only time will tell who was right and to what extent. For the time-being we can, as proud citizens, bask in the glory of having created the world’s cheapest car. Hail Tata Motors!!