|
 |
|
Subuhi
Ansari |
When I was asked
to share my views today, I thought it was going
to be an easy task. As I started thinking about
the topic, I realized it is not merely a
universal and academic subject but a deeply
personal one. Not only is the question of God a
deeply personal one, it is also a large and
serious one. Some of us think about the idea of
God consciously and arrive at our own conclusion
from our experiences and doubts and
philosophies. For many of us the question of
belief in God does not seem to rest on any
particular or consciously arrived foundation. We
are born and raised in a particular faith or
belief system. We are taken to church, temple,
mosque as the case maybe and grow up assuming
that the deity we worship, exists. Our belief
system determines our world-view, our way of
life and thinking, our superstitions and we
rarely question the system we grow up in. It
gives our lives meaning and direction and we
feel secure and comfortable. But are these
assumptions justified? As thinking beings,
should we not question our assumptions? Is there
any evidence for our particular belief?
Many
believers and philosophers have grappled with the question of God. To
many, it became important to prove that God exists. The western
theologians and philosophers set out to prove the existence of God
through intellectual proofs. I will briefly touch upon some of these.
For instance the First-cause argument put forward by Thomas Aquinas
maintains that everything that exists has a cause and as you go further
and further back you arrive at the first cause and this first cause is
God. However, there is a logical fallacy in this argument. If everything
must have a cause, then God must have a cause too. There is no logical
reason to say that we cannot go on infinitely on the chain of causes.
Then
there is the argument from design or the Teleological argument
advanced among others by William Paley. According to this argument,
universe is a harmonious place with all its elements working orderly
together. Just as a watch with all its intricacies implies a watchmaker,
this complex universe implies an omnipotent or omniscient being. This
inference has no validity because we now understand that the idea of
Natural laws is a human convention to understand and describe how the
universe works. Furthermore, if we understand the theory of evolution we
also understand that we adapted to our environment and not vice-versa.
We
now know that this universe is finite and temporal. Why would an Eternal
being create a universe that is going to die out? And why is it not
perfect? If we look at nature a little closely, we find that nature is
quite blind. This universe abounds with natural disasters and
catastrophes that are very destructive to the well being of its
creatures. We don’t even have to look closely to see how much evil
abounds in human actions. Why are these ills not remedied by the
omnipotent and omniscient God? If you look around at all the suffering,
you would have to conclude that the designer of this universe is
entirely indifferent towards its creation.
There
were, of course other thinkers and philosophers who completely rejected
the whole idea of trying to prove the existence of God. For instance,
Pascal, the 17th century philosopher and scientist
categorically stated that reason can not decide whether God exists or
not. He came up with the idea of a wager that became known as the
“Pascal’s wager.” Pascal says that it is impossible to know whether God
exists or not. Our existence is a given and therefore we are in the game
and must take a bet. He urges to take a wager on the side of God because
if we win, we gain eternal happiness or immortality. If we lose, we lose
nothing. I think the wager is a very curious reason for accepting the
existence of God. It simply points to the fear of death or mortality. We
are mortal beings. Intellectual and emotional maturity requires
acceptance of this existential condition. Everything that comes into
being carries its non-being within itself. We begin to die the moment we
are born. Fear of death and the unknown cannot be a sufficient reason to
believe in God or assert its existence.
One
of the most powerful arguments that the belief in God rests upon faith
and not reason comes from the 19th century Danish philosopher
Soren Kierkegaad. According to Kierkegaard, there is not only no
intellectual certainty to the existence of God but that it is a
spiritual mistake to attempt to prove its existence. His argument is
that if God does not exist, it is impossible to prove its existence. If
it exists, it is a folly to try to prove its existence because such an
attempt simply reduces the concept of God to our limited understanding.
According to him, God’s existence cannot be proved through Its works.
Again by doing so, we limit the idea of God. It is only through “leap of
faith” that we establish our relationship to this unknown or God. As
with Pascal, it seems that Kierkegaard feels a strong need to give the
unknown a name and acknowledge its existence. As soon as you give an
unknown a name, you have to give it some attributes and as soon as we do
that we are limiting it because we are dressing up this unknown with
human attributes. If we name the unknown but not give any attributes it
becomes irrelevant.
In
Indian philosophical system, there have been thinkers who have
categorically denied the existence of God. Caravaka’s philosophy is a
classically materialistic one. He believed that we can have certain
knowledge of only that which can be perceived. The physical world, which
includes humans, is made up of atoms. Once we die, our body which is
made up of atoms disintegrates and becomes one with other elements and
atoms. There is no after life or transmigration of souls because he did
not believe in souls. Our consciousness exists because of our physical
existence. While we live, we have to live to the fullest and become full
human beings. Gautam Buddha and Mahavir, the founder of Jainism also
considered the question of God irrelevant. They believed in ethical
living, overcoming of suffering, nonviolence towards all beings and
being true to oneself and others. A good ethical life was the essence of
their teaching.
It
seems that fear is one of the major motivators that leads one to believe
in the theistic idea of God. It is fear of the mysterious, of the
unknown, of the mortality. It is this fear that leads one to the belief
in immortality of one’s soul, of after life etc.
One
of the major problems of theistic faiths, is their belief in this
all-powerful God who by most accounts is a capricious God. As soon as
the concept of hell or eternal damnation enters, it becomes a cruel
faith. Although the apologists always insist that the concept of hell
and eternal damnation is only metaphorical, it still begs the question:
how can any being, especially all-knowing and all-powerful being
contemplate such cruelty towards its creatures? Atheism is basically a
denial of such a God. When God is accepted on traditional, psychological
or emotional grounds it is empty theism.
As a
woman, I take exception to the fact that in our male-dominated world,
God is portrayed as a patriarch in all theistic religions. A just God
cannot be discriminatory. God and religion have always been used to keep
women in their “lesser” roles and to perpetuate patriarchy.
I
believe that as intelligent human beings, we need to look at our world
honestly and acknowledge its goodness and its ills. We have to live
responsibly and do our best to make this world a good place. We can do
this by using our reasoning, our knowledge, our kindliness and our
courage to become fully human. If we live with integrity and
authenticity, then it is irrelevant what happens or where we go after we
die.
|