"The God Delusion"

I first heard of The God Delusion from a random sms. A day later, I came across an article on the book by Suresh Menon– though this was primarily a compilation of extracts, he sounded suitably impressed. And the same evening, I started reading Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence – whose principal argument is that societal violence stems from the tendency to associate human beings with a single identity, most commonly related to the person’s religion or community. The coincidences were too many to ignore – much like a message from God (pun intended!) – enough to pique my interest.

I read the first chapter of the book from NYT, which dwelt largely on the difference between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion. Not very exciting fare, but one should not judge a book by its first chapter!

The NYT’s review on the book seemed to indicate that the book had its merits, but apparently some of the arguments were far too specious, rhetorical and occasionally caustic to appeal to the rationalist. Wikipedia’s synopsis of reviews about the book appeared to corroborate the views of the NYT’s Jim Holt.

Both Bertrand Russell (whose views I can speak of more authoritatively, having read Why I Am Not a Christian, What is An Agnostic, and Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic – all excellent reads) and Dawkins (who I have not read – so what I say is likely to be an interpretation) present compelling rational arguments for the non-existence of God.

My dissatisfaction with both, however, is that they focus on the Christian God, i.e., both dwell upon the notion of a collective God, as defined by the Church. Indeed, Dawkins’ book would have been more aptly named The Christ Delusion, or at least The Religion Delusion – Russell, to be fair, was more explicit in his naming. Russell, being a precise mathematician, goes to the extent of including belief in Christ as part of his definition of a Christian, along with belief in God and immortality. Dawkins tries giving us a definition of what belief in God can denote – belief in a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship – but his focus thereafter appears to be on a Christian God.

Given this, it is no wonder that both move on to making an impassioned plea for the abolition of the practice of religion, and by extension, abolition of belief in God.

I will try to examine my thoughts on this, but with some modification. I will go with the definitions of God proposed by Russell and Dawkins, but my God will not just be Christian – he (or she!) may as well belong to any other religion. That is easy – I need only ignore the first part of Russell’s definition (about the belief in Christ). Also, while my God has powers that are appropriate for worship, the forms of that worship need not necessarily be collective, and is for me to decide (and may include no worship at all). By this, I want to introduce the concept of a personal God – a belief in God, without necessarily an accompanying belief in religion.

So, why does one believe in God? More importantly, why do most people tend to exhibit a strong belief in the existence of God, and treat the existence of entities such as Martians and spaceships with skepticism, given that we have seen neither?

I think it is partly due to what we learn at our mother’s knee – where did I come from, Mommy? Well Dad and I prayed to God to give us a bundle of joy to light up our lives and He gifted us with you. Any entity that has created the special ‘I’ was bound to have powers to grant, and deny, wishes. And by the time we understand the boring truth about how we to came to be, the belief is too far entrenched for us to discard – the result is regular visits to His House (church, temple, etc.) to demonstrate our belief and convenient explanations of chance instances as ‘acts of God to right the Universe’

It also cannot be denied that a belief in God has the capability to inspire some to reach for the impossible. Everyone needs an anchor, something to hold on to and to believe in when all else is falling apart, and for most people, God plays this role to perfection. I personally don’t believe in any of the miracles attributed to Gods of various faiths, having never been witness to one myself. But I have seen instances where people have been inspired to achieve impossible feats, and have attributed this solely to a belief in God.

Given this conditioning and so-called evidence of his super human prowess, God is built into something to be appeased and feared. Keep him happy, do as he bids you to (which will be decided by his torch bearers), and he will reward you. Anger him, and he will ensure you will get your come-uppance. To quote Russell - It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. I’ll take that further – his existence not just gives you someone who will stand by you, but also someone you can blame when things don’t go the way you want them to. It is an explanation of the unknown by an artificially known-unknown. You might as well replace him by a robot, or a Martian!
So the good fortune that we usually attribute to a faith in God is really an outcome, partly of our inner strength and capability, and partly a dash of good luck. And the bad times when God is supposedly punishing us for sins perpetuated years ago (or maybe in some other before-life!) is really ‘just one of those bad times’ when our luck runs out.

But we continue to attribute this to God because human beings like having a reason, a justification, for everything, even if that reason is inherently irrational, or leads to irrational outcomes and behaviors.

So, what if God was one of us, Just a slob like one of us, Just a stranger on the bus, Trying to make his way home.

What about religion?
There is no disputing the arguments laid out by both Dawkins and Russell, as well as numerous others, against religion – the misdeeds of the Church (and other religious bodies) perpetuated down the centuries are adequate evidence. In India itself, there are numerous instances of people who flaunt every convention of humanity (deceit, rape, loot and murder), all in the name of God. I am as inclined to believe in the existence of Christ as in that of the Greek or the Hindu Gods – which is almost zilch. In fact, I am sometimes tempted to believe that Christ and the Bible are the outcome of the first successful marketing campaign launched by the chiefs of religion – no wonder the Church is reputed to be one of the best run organizations in the world!

But all the evidence of the misdemeanors of religion relate to religious fanaticism – religion that is exclusive and taken to the extreme. Unfortunately, it does not account for the ‘moderates’ - the significant numbers who are devoutly religious, and have the good sense to not participate in religious extremism, or those who are moderately religious (most people I know, including my parents, would probably fall in this category ) and finally, those who are not religious at all, yet have a belief in God (I was a former member of this clan).

So, on the one hand, we have the faithful who are inspired to greatness by God, but who may not feel the need to impose their faith on others. And on the other hand are the zealots who may not understand God (or religion), but use it as a weapon of power (and destruction). Does the existence of the latter mean that everyone should stop believing in God and/or stop going to a Church/mosque/temple? To me, this sounds as specious as the famous Indian argument to ban ‘revealing clothes’ and ‘public display of emotion’ to cut down on rapes and eve teasing!

At a metaphysical level, there are no rights and wrongs anyways. But given that we agree on a definition of what is right and what is wrong, I see nothing wrong in believing in God or religion, as long as the belief, and the practice, remains personal and non-invasive. In fact, their presence might have more benefits that the Agnostics or Atheists are willing to give them credit for. If God’s presence, even if fictitious, makes life more bearable for me, whether I call him God or Jesus or Ali or John is really no one’s business. Many priests act as wonderful guides for youth, several religious institutions provide food, clothing, shelter and education to the needy, and many religious practices (such as Buddhism) provide support groups to the lonely.

But the problem arises when I want others too to see him exactly the way I see him, and to mould their actions in deference to him the way I do. We do not expect other people’s parents or spouses or children to emulate ours, nor do we expect them The same degree of moderation, if displayed towards God and religion, will make the world a much saner place

Like Russell, I believe that life in general does not have any purpose, but human beings have purposes. I would like to extend that belief to state that, just because what I am doing is not a part of some grander design, does not in any way diminish the value of my thoughts and actions. Unlike Russell, however, I see nothing timorous in using the imaginary crutches of religion to bolster my confidence, as long as those crutches are not used as a weapon to injure someone else. Look for imaginary allies in the sky, for what is life without a little imagination, but do not let your imagination limit your actions, or the free will of your fellow beings. Reach for the impossible, but do not expect it to happen on its own, and do not be discouraged if you do not get your heart’s desire even after trying. For the greatest miracle is what lies within a wise and compassionate heart.