Dec 28, 2019. Updated: Dec 9, 2023.

Religion

Reasoning does not imply atheism or theism. It is merely a methodology to asses information to arrive at truth. Depending on the available information, one can reason and arrive at the conclusion that God does exist, does not exists, or inconclusive.

People say that there is only one God. However, each religion puts forward different entities as God. If Jesus is the son of god, the Islamic god or the Hindu god does not have a son like that, thus proving that gods of these religions are indeed different entities. It is as though 5 children believe that they are born of the same father, but don't seem to have a consensus on who their father is; thus pointing to different men as their father.

We have many entities proposed to be the God, and most of them are anthropomorphic — meaning that they are entities with attributes of human lifeform: the lifeform we perceive to the greatest version of life. The only difference is that we have set no bounds for God on these attributes. Our ability to love is limited, but God knows no bounds to love. Our knowledge is limited, but God is omniscient. Our power is limited, but God is omnipotent. Our possibilities are limited, God's is not. The attributes are pretty much the same, only the limitations are removed.

But our understanding of life is a limited perception of life because of our own limitations. We have only 5 sense organs and percieve only what these sense organs capture and relay. Nor do our sense organs capture the full spectrum of that dimension it perceives — our eyes can see only a small spectrum electromagnetic waves and our ears capture only a small part of sound waves. The instruments we have invented to extent the scope our sense organs — such as the telescope, microscope and microphone — have limitations too. Our limitations extend to understanding only 4 dimensions of space and discovering only three life forms (animals, plants and microbes).

The fact before the invention of microscopes and telescopes, we could only see what our eyes let us; before the investions of microphones, we could only capture what our ears can from a limited spatial vicinity; before the improvements in biology, we understood only two forms of life: animals and plants; and before Einstein general relativity theory, we understood only 3 dimensions of space; proves that our understanding of life is imperfect, and as we improve science and technology, as we offset our limitations, extend the scope of our sense organs and discover more traits of life. The point is that our current understanding of life is limited too.

Therefore, a God with attributes as we understand life, a God who is someone, who is alive as we understand life, who is powerful like we understand power, who has emotions such as anger, sadness and mercy just as we animals do, who can protect us, who can hear our prayers and grant or reject them, who can punish us for our actions, who lives in heaven or some such place, who has such attributes as we understand human life, a God who is anthropomorphic, is a creation from our imperfect perception of life, and therefore is imperfect too.

If there is God, it has to be an entity with or without attributes, but certainly void of attributes as we understand life. Such a God will be a something rather than a someone; a fundamental force rather than a being, a cause of the effect rather than a creator of the effect. The weird part is to call such an entity as "God" because this entity doesn't fit the general stereotype associated with that God.

The Christian God Yahweh, the Islamic God Allah and the Hindu deities Ram, Shiva and Hanuman are examples of anthropomorphic entities, while the Hindu God Brahman is an example of an non-anthropomorphic God. Brahman is described as the intelligence or consciousness behind each cause and effect phenomena. Brahman does not create; it causes. The differences can be best explained by saying that you pray to Yahweh, Jesus, Allah or Ram, but you meditate and experience Brahman instead of praying to it.

Each nature of God suits a specific level of intellect. Evolutionarily, we are emotional beings first and rational beings second; which is why we learn to control our emotions but inculcate rational thinking. To such a mind in the early stages of intelligence, an anthropomorphic God makes sense over an non-anthropomorphic God, which is beyond the individual's cognitive skills. But as we gain reasoning skills and start thinking beyond the world of emotions, the idea of an anthropomorphic God makes less and less sense giving way for the argument of a non-anthropomorphic God whether with attributes or without attributes.

That is not to say that those who believe in an anthropomorphic God are intellectually inferior to the others. Intelligence gives you the ability to think in a superior manner; but even an intelligent person can be stuck in an emotional world when he does not use his intelligence. Those who believe in an anthropomorphic God is stuck in their emotional world, mostly because of their own bondage to fear, wants, needs and other such emotions. Most cannot fathom a God that is incapable of getting angry, showing mercy or providing things that are prayed for. They are stuck in a world built by the limitations of our senses and mind.

Understanding the nature of a non-anthropomorphic God is indeed a cognition intensive task and require the inculcation of rational thinking. The Vedic society understood this, perhaps this is why they structured a person's life into stages — Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sannyasa, that reflected this cognitive progress. In Brahmacharya, you are a student; and learn about an anthropomorphic deity, offer hymns, prayers and sacrificial rituals. In Grihastha, you start living your life with a profession and a family, following the religious practices inculcated in Brahmacharya. But as you start experiencing the reality of life — its joy and sorrows, happiness and sufferings; you tend to question the anthropomorphic nature God and gain wisdom from life experiences. As you enter the third stage of Vanaprastha, you would have realised God as a non-anthropomorphic entity, and start cutting your ties to the material world and progress into union with this non-anthropomorphic God, which you achieve in the fourth stage of Sannyasa, as an ascetic¹.

***

Indeed, there are no proofs for God, yet I reckon the existence of a non-anthropomorphic God simply because its existence is logically tenable and above all, it's non-existence is not proven. To say that something does not exist, the non-existence must be proven. History has given various examples to take this stand — such as the discovery of atom, whose idea was first proposed by the Vaisheshika philosopher Kaṇāda centuries before the Common Era, and yet it was only in the 19th century CE that a man named John Dalton proved its existence. This discovery does not imply that atoms did not exist prior to the 19th century; it existed. It only implies that its existence was discovered with empirical proof. Most things that we deny due to the lack of evidence may be an existing phenomena just waiting to be discovered.

Speaking of proofs, despite not having any of it, some religious leaders often state scientific and mathematical proofs for the existence of their Gods. Such acts must be treated as disinformation by skewing science, mathematics and logic to suit their propaganda. The fact is, science and logic only gives chance of existence to a non-anthropomorphic God; not to an anthropomorphic one.

Speaking of religions, they must be characterised based on what the scriptures say, not how its followers live or how its preachers interpret. If we are to do this, because each follower practises his faith in different degrees and varied commitments, and each preacher interprets scriptures as per his cognitive biases and intentions, we will have multiple definitions for a religion. A ideology cannot have multiple definitions; therefore, religion is not what their followers do or what their preachers preach, but what the scriptures say.

Religious practitioners are of two kinds: those who accepted religion and others that got indoctrinated with it. The former learned his religion first, knows that it cannot be proven yet chooses to believe in the doctrine for whatever reason and takes a spiritual approach. The latter hardly knows his religion, became a follower first, believes in the doctrine and is arrogant about its superiority, often attempting logical and scientific explanations to prove its authenticity. They believe in stupid proofs of their religious leaders.

This belief in supposed proofs leads to the belief that one's religion is superior to others, which has paved way to many atrocities, wars and intellectual slaveries. Many hold religion responsible for all these acts and even use such incidents to characterise the corresponding religions. But religions must not be held responsible and accountable for the atrocities committed by its fanatic followers. Religions were never invented for such acts. If a product is used for a purpose that it was not designed and developed for, the product must not be held accountable for the consequences of its misuse. The user is to be blamed.

It may be argued that the religious fanatics receive their instructions from their scriptures, although misinterpreted, and therefore, religion cannot shrug off it's blame. However, each individual also has the intellect to interpret scriptures responsibly and act accordingly. If one does not exercise that, it is because of the education he or she received, for which, the social system must take the blame — not a set of phrases in a book.

In fact, the world needs religions since they act as a moral compass and a spiritual guide to people — something that nothing else today can provide in a systematic and reliable manner. Until such an alternate arrives, there is place for religions in society.

Having said that, we must find other ways to stop religious fanaticism, and religious leaders cannot be that way. They are one of the most protected people on earth; not by guns or armour, but by the enslaved minds that will do anything and everything for them; and by the politicians who serve them to protect their vote bank. The only thing we can do is discuss and establish some sensible ground rules for religious leaders and practitioners with respect to what they can do in the society in the name of religion. This is our symbolic leash around the necks of those who are too blind and arrogant to realise the social impact of their religious fanaticism.

Personal Affair

Despite the fact that no religion can be proved to be true, and that some can be proved to be false, and that the right to education conflicts with right to religion since education and religion travel in opposite directions, the right to free choice, practice, profess and propagate religion has been conferred to citizens for the only tenable reason that there must not be a violation of conscience. In other words, to prevent the feeling of not being allowed to live a conscientious life; whatever the belief is. Therefore, choosing a religion for any reason except for one's own ardent belief in the faith is a misuse of the right to religion and any other conversion is by definition coercion. That said, it is time to look at religions.

The freedom to choose and practice a religion is an individual right, and therefore this right must be restricted to one's personal space only. It cannot be extended to make religious decisions for others. Doing so is contradictory to the freedom, as it deprives the other individual of this very right. Acts such as baptism and circumcision of children bring a permanent change in their life and therefore come under such practices.

Religion must be chosen by the individual after learning, understanding and believing it. If not, the act of choosing a religion is exercising the right in bad faith. Given the case that people have chosen their religion without actually believing in it but for certain incentives, such conversions can be considered an exercise of the right in bad faith. As to whether such conversions must be accept legally or not require further deliberations.

Nor should the practice of religion directly affect the lives of others: human or otherwise. An organism has the ultimate right and say on its life. Therefore any beliefs, rituals and traditions that affect another life, deprive it of its fundamental rights, its natural life or its natural habitat, without the consent of the organism, are nothing but acts of fanaticism, arrogance and intellectual slavery. The captivity of elephants, the animal sacrifices and the use of loudspeakers for religious events come under such acts.

Thirdly, the practice of a religion must not go against the prevailing social values, which although subjective, can be established through discussions and observations. An example of such value is religious tolerance, to curb which many fanatics carry out religious proselytism from the grey areas of the religious freedom. Such acts from grey areas of the law are exercise of the right in bad faith. Fanatics have used the freedom of religion in ways that it defeats the very purpose of the freedom, such as in the case of religious proselytism.

Proselytism

Religious proselytism is the act of persuading people from other faith to join the proselytiser's faith. The proselytisers, because of their vested interests, often paint noble perspectives onto proselytism, and it is imperative to peel them off.

Proselytism is not freedom of religion; it in fact obstructs free practice of religion because when proselytised, in order to practice one's religion, the individual has to fight the persuasions to stop practicing his religion and join another one. Had the faith to which the person is being proselytised to been a fact, proselytism could have been considered education. But since it isn't, this obstruction to free practice of religion isn't justifiable.

Proselytism is not free speech either, since you are engaging in expounding your thoughts and expressions, but persuading someone else to do something.

Proselytism is not propagation of faith since there is no consenting audience. Proselytisers approach a group of people uninvited, preach to them another religion that cannot even be proved, and persuade them to convert. There is no consent here. To propagate faith, they may market their sermons, seminars and conventions and to those who respond and come asking for more knowledge, they can propagate their faith. Propagation is not a fishing expedition; whereas proselytism is. The right to religious propagation does not extend to religious proselytism.

Proselytism is not an exercise of right to covert others. The religious leaders' right to covert others is a cascading effect of the individual's right to choose his or her religion. One cannot use this right to convert individuals in ways that it deprives the individual of the very same right (freedom of religion) that allowed conversion because it eliminates both rights. A good analogy is sitting on a tree's branch and cutting it on the inside. The branch gave the possibility to sit on it and cut part of it for use, but by whatever motivation, if the branch is cut on the inside, both the branch and the cutter falls.

The idea that the right to convert others is a cascading effect of one's religious freedom makes sense because if the right to convert is given to religious leaders explicitly, given their arrogance and motivation, they will embark on a conversion spree of every individual they find, which is in direct conflict with the religious freedom given to an individual. Therefore, religious leaders have the right to convert only those who have reached out to them asking to be converted. Religious leaders must be like a water well that does not go around offering water, instead waits for the thirsty to come, to whom it provides water.

Therefore, since a person has the freedom to choose and practice a religion, and since proselytisers barge in uninvited, and since the religion to which the victim is being proselytised to is merely a belief and not a fact, and since proselytism isn't propagation of faith, and since proselytism isn't freedom of conversion, religious proselytism is an unjustifiable violation of one's freedom to choose and practice religion. It would have been justifiable had the victim been proselytised to a fact. But that isn't the case.

There are two forms of proselytism: open proselytism and exploitative proselytism. When you outright tell someone to join your religion by either aggrandising it or patronising the other, you are engaging in open proselytism. On the other hand, when you exploit an entity such as a legal privilege, social status, influence, network or infrastructure that is serving a specific purpose, and plant the idea of conversion either directly or indirectly, consciously or subconsciously, you are engaging in exploitative proselytism.

When religious fanatics are cornered about proselytism, they whine of being intolerant and in-secular. But the truth is, it is the very act of proselytising that is a sign of religious intolerance, fanaticism, sheer disrespect and denial of freedom of religion and a challenge to religious pluralism. Religious leaders with the affinity to proselytise wear these traits, and because they are powerful and influential, they eventually influence legislation to adhere to their religion, thus murdering secularism. Hence, the greatest threat to a secular nation are proselytisers, its supporters and those who believe that proselytising is an integral part of their religion.

Distortions

Many religious fanatics engage in distorting the scriptures of other religions in order to substantiate their own doctrine and their own God. The tactics employed are misquoting, selectively quoting, de-contextualising and re-contextualising of verses of other scriptures in order to either make other faith and Gods look evil, or use good contexts in other scriptures to validate their own doctrine.

Such acts inhibit the functioning of a healthy society. It is neither accurate, nor logical and only creates an adversarial sentiment among the followers of the other religion.

Faith Healing

Faith healing and prayer grants are effective tactics to establish the absoluteness of one's religion. They are also used as promotional entities to attract audience to buy religious artefacts and attend pay walled events. For these reasons, there is a need for strict regulations on the broadcast and promotion of faith healing.

They first regulation is to prevent the calling of faith healing incidents as miracles without a proper study. Almost all faith healing incidents are misjudgements of causality which these studies can prove. In fact, faith healing can be tested publicly with the co-operation of the fanatics themselves in a simple experiment. Assemble a team with virtually unlimited money and power, and task them to ensure that everything a believer asks for in prayer sessions or conducts rituals for does not happen. Over a period of time, almost 100% prayer requests and ritual intentions will end up unfulfilled. This will prove that the what is believed to be granted by their God isn't actually God's grant but a result of something else; for if it is God's grant, it shouldn't matter who comes in between the omnipotent God and the success rate should not decline post the commencement of such test.

In case, sciences and studies cannot explain faith healing with empirical evidence, it can at least show a direction for further studies. For instance, many mathematical models have proven the existence of more than the usual 4 dimensions, and certain supernatural phenomena can be theorised to occur in dimensions we cannot perceive, thus giving it a divine nature when looked through the lens of religion. These possibilities are more plausible than the possibility of divine healing, such as in the case of accurate retelling of someone's past and faith healing. There are people deeply in meditation of their respective God, who can tell someone's past incidents with accuracy. It is my guess that such incidents are a result of psychic explorations to certain dimensions of energy or time which we are yet to clearly understood scientifically. They certainly aren't any divine interventions by an anthropomorphic God.

The second regulation is to include the success rates indicating how many came for healing and how many truly got cured. This is because such broadcasts promote faith healing as a system of cure, and carries an intention of attracting more followers to a particular prayer session, retreat centre or religion. These cost people time, money and energy, the broadcasts, publications and advertisements of faith healing must provide accurate information so as to enable people to make informed decisions.

Now, even assuming that faith healing exists, it must never be allowed to be used to aggrandise one's religion or establish its absoluteness or superiority since faith healing has been accounted by the followers of other religions as well²; which is also the reason why I believe that what is referred to as faith healing is a universal phenomena with a scientific explanation to it. If miracles are testimonies validate God and religion, then miracles happening in other religions and with other Gods either mean that all Gods are equally powerful, thus shattering the idea of 'one God'; or there is indeed an alternate explanation to faith healing.

Social Repositioning

There is a tactic employed by the religious fanatics that I term as "social repositioning", where they make tall and preposterous claims about their community and religion that are not just unsubstantiated but also disprovable. I reckon they do it for a sense of prominence. The problem with such claims is that it creates a false sense of superiority among its followers, which is manifests in their interactions with other communities.

For instance, a common tactic used by fanatics of all religion is the use the "selfless" card; that they gave selfless service to society, that they brought this and that to the society, that they have done charity, that they sacrificed a lot, that they made social contributions in multiple ways, etc. To them I ask: is it fair to expect social prominence or privileges for selfless services? How are they "services" if remunerations or allowances, whether in tangible form or otherwise, is expected in return? Philanthropic services remain philanthropic services only when they are not remunerated or paid for in whatever form.

Secondly, and most importantly, the motivation for such work is the asking of their God and religion. By doing such services, one is gratifying his religious duty and expecting the reward that is promised by their religion. So, how can such acts done to please their God and to satisfy their religious duty called selfless acts? They are indeed acts of self interest of attaining one's religious goal. Others seeing these acts may judge them as selfless and may hold the doers high in regards, but the doers themselves who know their own motivation cannot ask any privileges, remunerations and rewards for their services from society; they must be asked from their God. Only if they living a philosophy of materialism and acting for self alone, can any of their social contribution be called a service to society. Only then can it be called an selfless act; only then can it be called a sacrifice.

The root cause for such repositioning attempts is the fanatics' failure to understand that religion is strictly a personal spiritual affair distinct from the functioning of society. In their minds, there is a strict demarcation of the idea of 'we' and 'they' in terms of religion and this can be understood from their general conversations where they use such phrases as 'our people', 'their people', 'we', 'they', 'our side', 'their side', etc. I do not find the necessity of such demarcations in ordinary circumstances³ in the social plane.

Or perhaps, religious fanatics know that religion is a personal spiritual affair, but prefer it not to be so for the advancement and achievement of their own vested interests of money and power. An aggrandised positioning of their community establishes some form of superiority and control in society with which such goals and aspirations can be achieved. Religious demarcation becomes a prerequisite to this strategy. The day when laymen realise this, will be the day when religion will return to be a matter of spirituality.

Scientific Repositioning

When science dismantles the many narratives and explanations in religious scriptures, religious leaders in an attempt to defend their faith and establish relevancy, engage in what I call as the scientific repositioning of phrases in their scriptures such that it culminates in new un-disproved narratives and explanations.

The most common tactic is to say that the phrase must not be taken in its literal meaning, but with a philosophical, theological or poetical colour, thus mitigating the falsity in scriptures. The question is, on what basis do we decide what must be literally interpreted and what must not be? The trend is that whenever science proves something wrongs, that narrative is quickly re-interpreted to preserve the integrity of scriptures. Such repositioning can't be criminalised because a wrong position corrected although based on wrong pretext, but the desperation of religious leader to keep their scriptures and religion relevant is evident. Therefore, all that can be done to fight such slavery is expose such repositioning. Nothing much can be done here but expose their tendency to roll over.

The other defence is that the words in translated versions of scriptures are wrong and these incorrect translations are the cause for logical and scientific inconsistencies. If so, why didn't the translators use the correct word in the first place? Also, does not the incorrect translations render the entire translated work useless or questionable; thereby questioning the very basis of your faith itself? Also, beyond a speculation, is there any proof that while writing the scriptures, the words in question were used in the new proposed meaning, especially when there are direct and proper meanings to the words used in question? If not, then the new interpretation is nothing more than mere repositioning.

Subjugation of Minds

Religious leaders and fanatics engage in teaching children certain methodologies that subjugates reasoning and rational thinking in them. When children grow up, they make miserable decisions in their personal and professional life. This I say out of my experience watching many such minds around.

Religious leaders have a vested interest in subjugating reasoning and rational thinking among their followers from an early age. Only then, can these leaders and fanatics rule the thoughts and decisions of the followers. Anyone who can think reasonably and logically will question what's taught to them and what's told to them, and religious leaders often stammer for words when questioned with reason.

When someone dismantles the stands of religious fanatics with logical arguments, most fanatics often complain that we are overthinking, and that we shouldn't think so much and challenge God. I wonder what according to them separates under-thinking, the right amount of thinking and overthinking. Clearly anything that challenges their stand seems to be overthinking. Usually, we use the phrase 'overthinking' or 'reading between the lines' when someone is making conclusions that haven't been said or meant. To call logical deductions as overthinking is a sign of intellectual slavery and to call it challenging God is a sign of deep fear in their hearts.

Also, a lifestyle guided by reason and logic is often accused of being an animalistic life. But what separates humans from animals is our cerebral capacity — our capacity to think intellectually; and I find it ironical to call a lifestyle based on the use of this faculty that separates us from animals, an animalistic lifestyle. Apparently, for the fanatics, not thinking and becoming an intellectual slave is leading a human life.

The dangers of such definitions are long lasting, especially when the young generation, who is entrusted with the continuity of human consciousness and all the knowledge that we have amassed, are exposed to such hubris. If they become idiots unable to reason and use logic at various points of their life, they would make the world a worse place for every lifeforms. And if that happens, we have failed ourselves.

Reform Resistance

Every religion has a set of beliefs and practices that are regressive and innocuous to others. It is alright to criticise or compare religions in order to eradicate such beliefs and practices, or in the interest of truth. The common reaction to these acts by fanatics is a lamentation that their religion is being attacked, and an attempt to instigate its followers to retaliate. Such reactions are deeply rooted in the misunderstanding of correlation for causation, in the fad of victimhood, and in the desire to continue certain practices irrespective of their nature.

Nothing in our world, let alone religions and religious practices, are immune to criticisms that are made in good faith. Such criticisms are responsible for the progress of society and also for the freedom of the respective followers.