The Question of God

“To de-sacralise the Earth (not that we have the power) would lead to an anarchy so dangerous that it would destroy civilisation as we know it. ”

I don’t know if you are implying here that the construct of ‘morality’ would be threatened without the concept of God. If so, atheist thinkers have repeatedly refuted this idea asserting that humans do not need religion or God to stay moral. Except for psychopaths and sociopaths, most humans would stick to a universal code of conduct that outlaws crimes like rape, murder, theft and that ‘human solidarity demands that we look upon each other as brothers and sisters. This is innate to us.’

I’m somehow unconvinced by this atheistic view. It seems like an all-or-none kind of logic – everybody is similar and if some people do not need God, no one else does. Plus it takes for granted that all humans behave and think rationally. They don’t. Yes, many people would not and do not need the idea of God to stay true to a humanist value system. But as experiments in dishonesty conducted by behavioral economist Dan Ariely show, all of us cheat and a reminder of the existence of a moral code (whether religious or not) helps in ensuring ethical behavior. I think religion and God, whatever the faults, deserves credit or at least more investigation for any merits in this aspect.

I agree with the idea of thinking about God beyond the physical-material realm. I’m increasingly leaning towards a behavioral/psychological understanding of God. Keep writing.

“A number of blind men came to an elephant. Somebody told them that it was an elephant.
The blind men asked, ‘What is the elephant like?’ and they began to touch its body.

One of them said: ‘It is like a pillar.’ This blind man had only touched its leg.
Another man said, ‘The elephant is like a husking basket.’ This person had only touched its ears.
Similarly, he who touched its trunk or its belly talked of it differently.

In the same way, he who has seen the Lord in a particular way
limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else.”
–Blind men and an elephant

God is all pervasive and all powerful .
To comprehend , to debate or to dismiss his existence
is perhaps like an ant trying to understand the structural complexity of the Empire State Building .

Sages of past and present have said ,
God can only be truly understood after evolution of human consciousness.

Else one can always continue to describe the elephant .

Allow me to submit that your submission is contradictory. In making any claim whatsoever about God, i.e., “God is all pervasive and powerful”, you are yourself engaging in an act of comprehension, an act you deem impossible and fruitless. If you cannot comprehend God, how do you know he is all-pervasive and powerful?

In my previous comment , I reiterate whats been an integral part of the Vedas and do not make any claim out of any personal understanding arising out of my ordinary mind about the all pervasiveness of God .

As sages have said God is to be experienced by evolution of human consciousness .
.
” Sri Aurobindo dubbed that higher principle supramental mind. Supramental mind comes from a plane of manifestation far above the merely mental plane that humans come into contact with. Although the term mind is used, this plane far transcends the logic and intellect that ordinary mind can reach. ”
http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Aurobndo/Aurobndo.htm

.

Superb contribution.

I’d like to thank and commend you on a good read. I liked it enough to want to leave a comment, even though I am a tad nervous that my thoughts are not structured; let alone informed enough. Still, since the topic of religion and God is one that most of us find hard to get away from without sharing an experience or an opinion, however foolish…. 1. Why do we presume that asking the question, ‘do you believe in God’, automatically impies – believers think of God ‘only’ as a physical-material entity. Belief is a certainty in one’s knowledge. The asker only questions the belief in the existence of God; not belief in the form or shape of His existence 2. There is a commonly understood life-fundamental. That the best of human endeavour cannot control or guarantee outcomes. Curveballs exist and fly smack into us ‘every single’ time they are least expected. Lennon summed it best: life happens when you are busy making other plans. It is this unpredictability of circumstance that provokes belief in something or someone with a greater power than our capacities. For a long time, we thought of that as, nature. And it still well could be. The entire process of civilizing ourselves has been to dissociate and shield ourselves from an unruly environment that, after ten thousand years, we still have not been able to tame. The Vedas transmuted nature for God and vice versa. As did most other early religions. By appeasing and propitiating natural forces and the elements, we sought to bend the arc of a cruel destiny towards fortune. 3. Our continuing biological evolution exploded the limits of our mental and physical capabilites. Our conscious experience of life altered with our formidable capacity for memory. The content and depth of our relationships changed. Our approach to death and grief took on a different dimension which again reinforced belief in a higher force that controlled the scheme of earthly affairs. Death would not have taken on its overpowering impact if we did not have love. The emotions and reasonsing that imbue, a sometimes intolerable, consciousness forced a search for answers to the purposelessness of existence in the face of an unavoidable death. 4. Who is this God? Is He an anthropomorphic being? Is He the impersonal absolute? Is he a she? Both? An it? Is it a force? What or who is this God? 5. Hinduism comfortably embraces all the above versions of God and more. A life force exists in each of us – the Atman. A part and parcel of the Impersonal Absolute – the Brahman/ Paramatman. Brahman in anthropomorphic or biomorphic form: the Atman. You could call that Carbon if you like. Or Hydrogen even. It doesn’t matter. We start from a congealing of atoms and a force. We end in the dissolution of those bonds. The atoms rejoin the matter of the earth. The force with the divine of the Absolute. Or with the scientifically described forces of the Universe. There is a Cartesian split here. A scientist might call it an atom and a force. A neuroscientist struggles with mind and body. A Hindu philosopher calls it the Atman and the Brahman. Described this way, it would be hard for any discipline to deny its presence. You might well ask, if these atoms could be our destinies. And they well might. Until we discover how we can alter forces and bonding in ways better suited to our ends, that will be a difficult question to answer. Prayer and repetitive hymnal recitation might have as yet unexplored effects. 6. Can we see this God or this force? To my mind: we realise the Atman presence in each life form on this earth. Everyday. Whether as a human, a bird, a dog, a tree or a landscape. Realizing the Absolute requires a transcending of the material world to some extent. But it is my belief that if and when we do achieve that; all arguments over its form, structure or ether will be moot. He could then be a stone idol in human form. Or a vast nothingness. It would not matter. Apologies to all that got this far! ) Nandan – thank you for a fine explanation of a supposed contradiction. If I assume the role of an impartial observer; these explanations of why ‘they behave the way they do’, help. I struggle with that because, living is a deeply tormenting process. This feature will force, at some point in every one’s life, a collison with spirituality. When the experience is so intensely personal, I struggle with being an observer from the sidelines. My only disagreement with you, however, is with your characterization of those that trap God in spatio-temporal frames. That is alright as I see it. I can see myself swing from trapping Him in a stone to an emptiness in the cosmos, in sound and in silence, in a human, an animal or a tree. Like Prahalda said, to my mind, the force is truly all pervading. Whatever works for folk. I’ll close with the bard who I don’t see as any different from Shankara: There is a destiny that shapes our ends; rough hew them how you will.

Well said Vijay. I felt I was missing context and thank you for plugging the gap. As for the rest, honest apologies for the length. A lot of recent mental wringing on the subject came out in a torrent of verbiage. Editing, I feared, would’ve provoked an argument with my own thoughts and forced silence upon me. A Muni recently told me, that on this one subject it is better to speak out even if wrong; coz it is in the exchange of thoughts that we arrive at the Right. Guess, I took his advice too literally eh? I take it you didn’t agree with much of the rest? Excellent read. Tks and keep them coming!

Well said Raj .
.
Over – intellectualism and Mental gymnastics is unfortunate on the subject matter of God…………

Science can be a great aid to settle the question of whether belief in God is necessary to imbue human beings with morality. Unfortunately, the belief in God or supernatural forces is so widely prevalent across societies that it is hard to find a society whose vast majority is atheistic or does not believe in supernatural forces. There’s evidence to show that even the Neanderthals practised some kind of worship. If we are able to find one in the present or one that existed in the past, that should provide us some interesting insights on the relationship between belief and morality.
I think the link is as not as strong as those who argue for belief say it is. To me, morality exists because it serves some vital functions. I look at it as something that provides individuals and societies a means to cope with inner fears, desires and conflicts, and social disorder and competition. All individuals everywhere cultivate individual moral codes that closely reflect their situation in their own personal life and in society. I don’t think there exists a universal morality, a set of moral codes that is followed by all human beings in all societies. Fifty individuals can all go to the same “moral science” class at school and yet grow up with individually unique moral codes. Belief comes in much later, and to me, is just a great aid in teaching morality. If we are to believe that God is necessary for teaching morality, then it should not be possible to teach morality to kids at a very young age, as they are not yet blessed with the cognitive powers for the abstractness of thought necessary to deal with concepts such as God or supernatural forces. But it is possible. A good ol’ ass spanking can be as effective in teaching right/wrong to a kid as instilling fear of God’s wrath. Ask dad or mom !