Thursday, July 19, 2007

God, Atheism, Life, the Universe and Everything

What's the height of laziness? Okay, another one: what's the best solution to blogwriter's block? Answer: Recycle stuff. Better your own than someone else's. This post is lifted from an email conversation about God, Atheism, Life, the Universe and Everything that we had: my friend Ajinkya (whom I consider one of the smartest people I'm personally acquainted with) , his other scientist friends (for whom he vouches in a similar manner), and me ([no vouching business]).

The following rant is, of course, what I posted in that conversation. It's something I've been meaning to blog about in a long time. But now that it's out there i.e., in the realm of written language, thanks to the email, I find it needless to rewrite. Much rather paste the damn thing and get it over with. (Yes, no matter how much I love writing, that's how I feel about it most of the time.)

Forgive the absence of correct punctuation.

"it's very interesting that Godel's incompleteness theorem was mentioned...although i know neither head nor tail of it, i found a strange similarity in the statement of that theorem to one of the implications of postmodern thought: if you assert that the age of grand narratives or eternal truths are over, the assertion itself canbe seen as a grand narrative/eternal truth of our times, and is problematic. basically i find the so-called arrogance equally in both asserting 'there IS a god' and 'there IS no god.' i mean, what the hell do we know? do we know anything for sure?

now, i'm hesitating to comment on the issue that i'm going to commenton next nonetheless - obviously you guys would know better! - but isn't it true that even physics isn't a grand narrative in the sense alot of Truths with a capital T have turned out to be only relative truths? i mean, Ajinkya wrote that he finds physics and mathematics to be "absolute"... a few years ago i was shattered to know even my basic understand of the world, gravity for example, was called into question after einstein. and now even after the age of quantum mechanics would it still hold that physics is one of the paths to absolute truth? (not a rhetorical question, sirs - i'm asking out of curiosity with humility :) ) i find it a bit harder to argue against mathematics though.

so agnosticism seems to me a great opinion to adopt, also consistent with my experiences in a lot of life's issues: that one doesn't know for sure. there's hardly any firm ground to stand on. once you reach a level of certainty, growth/wisdom stops. knowing anything for Sure is akin to death. hence the cliche "the only thing constant is change."i'd never know if there's a god or not. (it's terribly frustrating,but also liberating. yes, it sometimes sounds like i'm chickening out.) just like you'd never know your boyfriend/girlfriend *really* loves you or not. or whether deep inside i'm *really* not a pedophile or i am, or whether Hitchcock's 'rear window' is *really* about castration or not. or whether it's *really* possible to measure a particle's velocity and position simultaneously or not?!

in one of my favourite movies, Contact (based on Sagan's novel), JodieFoster plays a skeptical scientist (oops, are there other kinds?) who initially scoffs at the common people's faith in something, anything (in this case, a higher being). but in the end, she goes through an experience (travelling through a wormhole) and learns deep truths about the universe - - but unfortunately leaves no physical evidence before the law. she ends up asking the authorities to take her word on the basis of faith. a year after adoring the film so much, i had second thoughts, and was suddenly critical of the film: it advocates that faith of one kind is almost equivalent to faith of any other kind. rationality is the superstition of our times. this assertion is also in the postmodern realm... and it confuses the hell out of me.

oh yes - for all day-to-day purposes i'm an atheist. (hardly visit temples, hardly stand at an idol and hardly recite mantras, hardly feel like a hindu) but deep inside, philosophy-wise, personally, i'man agnostic. it doesn't mean that i'm open to the possibility that one day we might confirm the existence of a god with an elephant head and four hands who's reputed to be mischevious and have a huge appetite. bullshit. they're obvious social/historical constructions that intend to use religion to control communal morality. i think discussions of atheism have to be split into two parts - discussions of religion as a communal, hegemonical affair and discussions of personal belief, ethics and philosophy. i think i'd qualify as an atheist in the former and agnostic in the latter.

also, it struck me as strange that savarkar talks about 'punya' bhumi,which definitely means he adheres to some kind of religious ethics. and yet an atheist? so does that mean his view of religion and the subsequent fundamentalism is based solely on the purity of race et al concepts and NOT at all on god?! awesome! ... that's even worse.

if you're reading this line, it means you've had to bear my entire ramble. admirable.
shreyas

PS: an old joke from readers' digest: "Trust in God...but lock your car.""



1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good words.

2:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home