There
is a chasm of fundamental difference between atheism and religion as defined by
the humankind.
When
I say atheists I refer to all the men of science who need a mathematical or logical proof of life beyond our life. These are the self-proclaimed
men of proof that believe that factual evidence leads to lesser evils; evidence
leads to intelligent human beings behaving rationally and morality is an
outcome of human evolution, from hunters to builders, rather than a faculty
that draws power from a moral code of conduct defined by greater
consciousness. The supernaturalistic beliefs lead to irrationality and
religious zeal ultimately ending in bigotry. That's their problem with religion
and hence the atheistic call for freedom from such beliefs that are
non-scientific.
Religion
in today's (since recorded human history) world has been reduced to belief in
miracles and pestering requests for materialism from a supernatural being. The
fundamental philosophy points that problem lies not in the religion but in the
unquenchable desire to quickly gain earthly possessions and
gratification of senses. So apparently there is a problem with the faculty of
human emotions that guides us in the life. It's not a question of realignment
of mind from religion to atheism or vice versa. It's a call of back to basics
where the focus is on the understanding of concepts that haven't been fully
understood yet; ranging from nature and purpose of existence.
As
long as humans keep believing there is a problem with religion or science the
fight to prove other one wrong would continue. However you cannot prove the
other wrong. The two "philosophies" seem to deal with two different
aspects of human existence. As physicists realized the fundamentals of
Newtonian physics were incapable of explaining the unimaginable quantum world.
A theory of logic is unable to explain the human psyche to continuously pursue
sense in a world full of insanity. These natural sciences are limited and have
evidences that help to explain certain inexplicable phenomenon. At the same
time there are spiritual philosophies in Vedic religion that explain the nature
of human body, mind and soul. As a student I should have the right to pursue
both not get stuck in a cold war between atheists and religionists to prove
other wrong.
This
is not a debate on creationist versus evolutionist. I'm not going to bash the
religious freaks on the misuse of religion for their own propaganda resulting
in massive discrimination within human race and gross misrepresentation of
religion as malicious doctrine. Also, I'm not going to ridicule the
evolutionist on their brazen desire to label religious faith as equivalent to
believing in fairies then again believing a theory of evolution that includes
leaps of faith such as primordial soup, tiktaalik and genes that carry the
blueprints of life. Science is amazing and so are religious philosophies. Both
the paths have power to bring human mind to a realization that should lead to
embracing qualities like humility and knowledge (bit biased as these two are
my favourites).
This
is a plea to the two kinds to leave me alone. I don't want to be burdened by
your continuous effort to prove other wrong. I'm awed by scientists when they
talk about multiverse, wave theory, hox genes and
now apparently highschoolish concepts of gravity that are
explicable with equations but mysterious in nature. In the same way I'm awed by sants (संत ) that
are truth seekers not miracle workers who points to theories that would raise my consciousness beyond polluted materialism and into a state of perpetual humbleness. In my own way I want to bring my
life's purpose to a conclusion. On the way I'll be helped by the philosophies
of science as well as religion. After all I think life is a journey of
self-discovery rather than an attempt to mold into a cast of any
"-ism".
Comments
Post a Comment