..............Abhishek Bhagat
The assassination of rationalists like Kulabargi, Dabholakar and Govind Pansare by the religious extremists and the brutal activities of militant groups like ISIS and Lashkar-e-Taiba illustrate how irrational faiths can create unrest and destabilize the societal harmony. The grave problem is that the root of these irrational faith lies in the holy books or scriptures because extremists most of the times rationalize their actions on the basis of holy books. Rationalist like Dawkins describes it is as “bloody irrational faith, the process of non-thinking” and that makes him to claim religion as “root of all evil”.
The assassination of rationalists like Kulabargi, Dabholakar and Govind Pansare by the religious extremists and the brutal activities of militant groups like ISIS and Lashkar-e-Taiba illustrate how irrational faiths can create unrest and destabilize the societal harmony. The grave problem is that the root of these irrational faith lies in the holy books or scriptures because extremists most of the times rationalize their actions on the basis of holy books. Rationalist like Dawkins describes it is as “bloody irrational faith, the process of non-thinking” and that makes him to claim religion as “root of all evil”.
In this short essay I argue that being doubtful towards holy books or scriptures is rational and courageous. Because when there are different versions of the holy books deciding which one represents the original words of God, is a huge question? Secondly religion must be tolerant to allow science to interfere in religious matters. Perhaps, through logical method of doubting, it is possible to find the roots of rational and irrational faiths in religion.
There are certain similarities between science and religion. Absence and misuse of both will result in destruction of civilization. Both have evolved and developed side by side over time. Even the nature and purpose of both changed over a period of time to suit the human interest of that time. In fact, it is impossible to imagine society without science and religion. One of the major differences between science and religion is: science allows to test, investigate and doubt the things, contrary to religion which can’t tolerate that. Because religion is regarded as a word of God, which is flawless, can’t be changed, modified and examined. When we become religious, we can’t doubt the existence of GOD. Perhaps faith in God is not that problematic, but problems arises when we want to know about the original word of God. How can we be so sure about the authenticity of holy books or scriptures? What makes us regard the text as actual words of God?
Generally, we form our religious beliefs by reading holy books or scriptures, from preachings of priests, noble persons, scholars and through parents. How can we be so certain about the knowledge transmitted by these sources? Take the example of any religion; there are several versions of religious scriptures or holy books. The Indian, ancient historian Thapar (2015) suggested that there are different versions of Ramayana which include the Kamba Ramayana in Tamil, the Krittibas in Bengali and the Tulsi Ramayana in Hindi. In addition the original Ramayana written by Valmiki is doubted (Ambedkar 2008, p.243). Similarly, Mahabharata which underwent essential transformations, comprises of three editions, Jaya written by Vyas is in story form, Bharat which was written by Vaishampayana added the sermon in the first form and third editions is Mahabharata which was written by Sauti added sections on politics, geography, archery, etc. (Ambedkar 2008, p.249-252). Other religious scriptures, including that for Islam and Christianity are not exceptions. There are different versions of Koran and Bible (Dawkins, R, 2012). In Buddhism also there are different versions of Dhammapada. As suggested by Bhikku Tannissaro it consisted of…
“pali from Burma, combodia, Laos, Sri lanka and Thailand, two incomplete manuscript of Gandhari Dharmapada found in central Asia; and manuscript in Buddhist hybrid-sankrit Dhammapada found in a library in Tibet called the Patna Dhammapada because photographs of this manuscript are now kept in Patna, in India. There is also Chinese part of Dhammapada created in third century C. E. from Pakrit original.”
Which of them (the version of holy books or scriptures) are authentic and manifests of the original words of God, is a huge question? Beside it has been showed that these versions of same holy books contradict with each other (Dawkins, R. 2012). Lay readers don’t seem interested to read these different versions of same holy books and those who cannot read how can their beliefs be so true, is a question? Therefore there is large possibility that their understanding of religion is biased and false.
Secondly, if it is true; that we understand phenomenon and perceived knowledge through senses then, there is no doubt to say that our senses can be biased, which also means that our beliefs can be biased and false. Bertrand Russell says that "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
As Suggested by David Hume (2004, p.01)
“When a philosopher comes up with something that looks like a paradox and is contrary to basic beliefs of ordinary folk, ·it often fares better than it deserves, for two reasons. It is greedily embraced by philosophers, who think it shows the superiority of their discipline that could discover opinions so far from common beliefs. When something surprising and dazzling confronts us, it gives our minds a pleasurable sort of satisfaction that we can’t think is absolutely baseless. These dispositions in philosophers and their disciples give rise to a relation of mutual comfort between them: the former furnish many strange and unaccountable opinions, and the latter readily believe them.”
Hence, being doubtful towards Holy Scriptures and preaching seems rational and courageous. And killing of rationalists and lay persons by the extremists in the name of God or religion is a shameful act and threatens the development of secular nation. It is not only violating fundamental rights of expression but also the right of life of a person. It certainly is the dark side of modern age.
Even existence of God can be doubted if we take for granted the philosophical question raised by Bertrand Russell (2009): “Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?” Similarly the father of modern philosophy Rene Descartes () claimed that he only cannot doubt his own existence because he can think (I think, therefore I am), otherwise everything else can be doubted. He argues that there is no perfect or certain knowledge, but its validity and weight can be judged through the logical method of doubting.
But denying all faiths or beliefs carried out by the masses since centuries in a moment, sounds irrational, disastrous and impractical approach to deal with the notion of God and Divinity. I believe that it is possible to provide some kind of rationale for peoples “faiths” which is part of religion. For example; the acceptance of the existence God and beliefs in God can provide some energy, hope to individuals and if it results in good outcome then there is no problem at all in believing in the notion of God. Faiths or beliefs may be right or wrong. But when there is no harm for well-being of humans then it is perfectly fine. But in that process religion must be tolerant to allow science to interfere in religious matter, to doubt the existence of God or Divinity. Because it may be possible through the method of doubting we can find the origins or roots of the “FAITH”, we can dig out some hidden truths and false beliefs in religions. Once this rational or the irrationality of faiths and hidden truths or false beliefs revealed, then there is no logic to deny the illuminating truth. For instance; the truth that planet’s revolved around the sun. Just think, what would happen if nobody dared to appeal the prevalent religious notions of that time. Now it is proven and no one can deny that, the truth is Sun is at the centre of the solar system and other planets revolve around it. I think that the study of sciences, philosophy and history of evolution together can come up with a proof one day how the notion of God comes in existence? Perhaps it will be the truth just like how Copernicus & Kepler shook’s the very prevalent religious notion of his time; the earth is the center of solar system rather than sun.
But for present; the practical way (Middle Path) I find to deal with the notion of God or divinity is in Buddhist philosophy. It is very evident that Buddha is silent on the notion of God, divinity or origin of the world; (however he denied the Vedic gods) but so often he did not engage and seems reluctant to involve himself in such a discussion. Because from Buddha’s point of view that is insignificant and irrelevant to involve in such discussions or to answer the questions related to God and divinity for well-being of human society. And on the other side, those are the kind of questions which may don’t have answers at all. For instance; there is no mathematician or individuals who can measure the sand stones on the river bank or stars in the sky. Whereas Buddha focuses on human agency that is rightly expressed in Ambedkar’s words “that each man should be morally trained that he may himself become a sentinel for the kingdom of righteousness.” As suggested by Omvedt (2003), Buddha simply said; “this is pain, this is the origin of pain, this is the ending of pain and this is the path leading to the ending of pain” (The Four Noble Truths). Not only that but his teaching is practical, according to mental disposition of his listener (14th Dalai Lama, 2010). For example; to lay person, who is believer of God, there is no use to preach the canonical debates. Whereas the practical way is, let his/her faith sustain and preach him/her in a way so that he/she may turn to be a good person.
To sum up: it is always better and seems practical and/or relevant to celebrate ‘religious pluralism’, keep respect towards all faiths, as different kinds of philosophy satisfies the interests of different groups of people (14th Dalai Lama). But at the same time the aspect of criticality in religion should not be undermined because it is certain that the knowledge transmitted by holy books, scriptures and preaching could be flawed, irrelevant and not representing the original words of God (Godliness). Even the rationalist, atheist or non-believers need to be respected, to be allowed to doubt and present their views on delusion of God or divinity. Perhaps This is revealing, perhaps it is true. Religion must be tolerant to allow science to investigate, test and examine the religious aspects or beliefs. Because through the method of doubting it is possible to know about irrational aspects or beliefs in religion which are held by people for centuries.
Certainly I am not negative towards religion, my only concern is; that it is always better to see religion and science as two sides of same coin rather than as separate entities. These two sides are opposite to each other but being together, some sort of relation and attachment is there between both. There is a need to explore & establish a link between science and religion. There is no harm to accept fruitful religious beliefs after testifying.
Mckinnon (2005) describes Opium’ (the metaphor used by Marx to expose religion) as a drug which can be served for the purpose of better health but the misuse and excessive dose of it results in deterioration of the health. Religion may just to be like that……!!!
References
Ambedkar (2003). Bhagawan Buddha and His Dhamma. Buddhist Research Association, Nanded. p. 284-287, 335-336.
Ambedkar (2008). Ch-10 Literature of Brahmanism. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Vol. 3, p. 237-265, Government of Maharashtra.
Russell, B. (2009). The Problems of Philosophy, Watchmaker Publishing.
Dalai Lama (2010). The Four Noble Truths. Harper Collins, New Delhi.
Dawkins, R. (2012). The God Delusion. Documentary.
Descartes, R. (1985). Rules for the Direction of the Mind, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol 1, pp. 7-77. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hume, D. (2004). Treatise of Human Nature.
Madan, T. N. (2011). Introduction India’s Religions: Plurality and Pluralism. India’s Religion; Perspective from Sociology and History, Ed. T. N. Madan, p.1-34. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Mckinnon (2005). Opium as Dialectics of Religion: Metaphor, Expression and Protest, Critical Sociology, Vol 31, No 1/ 2, pp. 15-38.
Omvedt, G. (2003). Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. Sage Publication,
Thanissaro (). Dhammapad: A Translation. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. p.136
Thapar, R. (2015). Linking the Past and the Present. Interview with Romila Thapar by Ranabir Chakravarti, Vol 32, No.18, p. 26. Frontline. 