Rational concept by Swami Vijnananand
The need of evolving a God concept rationally acceptable was
felt in the Templeton conversation as seen in earlier articles. In this article
we see that a comprehensive vision on the similar manner penned by Swami
Vijnananand in his book published in 1962.
Here are some excerpts from the first two chapters of his
book “God Reconsidered”.
Eight Questions asked, theists to answer: To fence
around the circumstances the earnest fold of devotees must put aside their
orthodox, rude gestures and should study the points on which God is attacked.
The chief amongst them presuming He exists, merely for the sake of argument is:
God is deceptive.
He is partial.
He is mystic.
He supports
cruelty.
He encourages lawlessness.
He is egoistic.
He employs double
dealing.
He disfavors rationalism.
The list can be extended considerably. However the gist of
disapproval or condemnation of the disbelief, skepticism or doubts is covered
in these 8 points. Again these unfavorable comments or criticism can be
reworded.
(2) Right of agnostics to demand answer.
Agnostics have a right to insist for answer. By virtue of
being victims of a long sufferings for centuries at the hands of God-believers
they have acquired this privilege. Hundreds of rebellion against God sacrificed
broke on the wheel, as if, Walter Malone’s axiom in their heart, “An honest man
cannot surrender an honest doubt”.
(3) Task of God believers easy if they deal with it in 3
ways.
Obviously the ego of God believers and revengeful attitude
of the agnostics confront the efforts of reconciliation. Unless one keeps his
mind balanced, impartial, open, alert, honest, straight forward, even a simple
approach to a formidable question looks improbable. Both sides have suffered
insults so they are dogmatic, having their own inflexible convictions ingrained
in them. The task calls for Herculean efforts, none the less, it is achievable
at the cost of sustained efforts. The problem can be attacked from three fronts
to ensure success.
3A) First term-of the truce, pending final verdict is to
nurture a belief in the intrinsic earnestness of the atheists.
3B) Onus to prove the gaps in the creed of the non-believers
rests on the theist. The materialist should be logically led to the conclusion
that his own pillar-stone of philosophy is as shaky as that of God’s missionary.
That is to a certain extent a negative proof, though by no means it is lacking
of any purpose, intention.
3C). Therefore, what could bring home a perpetual
reconciliation is fundamental endorsement to the concepts.
(4) Primary need to admit gap:
To begin, has the believer himself ascertained true nature
of God? If not, it looks imperative for him to honestly say.so. Next case for
analysis by the enthusiastic devotee is disparities in various revelations. It
is the theist’s own burden to furnish convincing reasons for such, fragrant
diversities, instead of wasting energy in insisting on excelling supremacy of
his own pious faith. And does the notion of each religious follower, that his
creed is a chosen one among all, stand to a dependable test?
(5) Sufferings of Religious leaders-a lesson:
Glance over the life sketches of all the religious leaders.
As chosen men of the Almighty, were they spared of agony and despair? What
could be the purpose of God in throwing his trusted messengers on Pins and
needles, though temporarily? Does the Divinity aim at verification of his
prophet’s tenacity? And then "does
it not curtail God of His limitless capacity to know everything?
Followers of all faiths are faced with such obscure
perplexities as all major sects are studied one after another.
(6) Suffering of followers disproves extrajudicial
grace, prayer etc. In addition to leaders themselves, the fold of followers-some
of the most ardent amongst them; tell a similarly sorry tale.
Illustrations from Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism,
Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism etc. are
provided in the book and the conclusion says:
There is nothing obscure in torch-bearers of God being in
peril, when-a rigorous law is presumed. None could appreciate God to plead,
"Oh men, I punish you for every wrong; but I shall pardon myself or my
flatterer for the open follies."
(7) Non-believers, un-tortured:
On the background of a parade of pious, persecuted
spiritualists, comparatively rewarded lives of host of mundane materialists
manifest marked contrast. Quite obviously, materialists too have to counteract
defeat, disease and death. The question at issue is: do they suffer on account
of their atheism? A negative answer comes back. The declared skeptic
individual, far from being victimized by God or Nature, is found basking in the
sunshine. It appears then that Nature's code of granting gratification is governed
by other rules than a lay God believer imagines.
(Many such illustrations from different part of the world
are provided to substantiate this point).
Indeed, one wonders why believers fight shy to accept a lawful
God in preference to a kind God. Further investigations pronounce the
flagrant truth without a stint of vagueness how half-hearted, pious beggars
have spoild the name of Good God.
The theist rejoins the non-believer, (Answers to the
questions above).
A few tentative, probable answers to the eight charges leveled
against the Supreme Being are attempted as below, leaving an overall reply to
be spread over the entire course of the treatise.
- Is God deceptive?
That God has deceived pro-pounders of various religions by
presenting Himself differently is inherently on unsound reasoning.
The concept of God implanted in those who believe Him in a
certain singularly immutable form takes its root from prophets or Messiahs on
whom they rely. It was, perhaps, not the issue of understanding the highest
truth (which of course each one of them did perceive and promote), but it was
the level of listeners' ability.
A professor of mathematics realizes the gaps in Euclidean
Geometry but withholds revealing them to the lower class. The instructor of
physics already is acquainted with modifications in Newtonian mechanics nevertheless
he abstains from introducing them to juniors. On similar grounds, expositors of
religions had tenable reasons to reserve the highest knowledge from the
commoners at that level of grasp. The God- sent assured themselves that at an
advanced stage, either the new Messiah would come or that the craving creatures
could learn their own lessons and thrust forward.
- Is God partial, as He
created inequalities?
Disciples of God are shrouded in ignorance about 'Why' of
the Universe and God, as much as Scientists are, though both continue to offer
explanations. Consequently, there is no substantial ground for scientists to
scorn at the credulity of the believer. And to come to the point at issue,
science concedes that no particle of matter is exactly like the other, in as much
as every particle occupies different space (and of course, time).
'Reason why' of it is beyond the comprehension of
scientists. They should allow the same latitude to the other side.
- Is God mystic?
An agnostic commands a willing support from a rationalist in
his defiance of obscure mystics of various schools but, to call God Himself a
mystic is incorrect. He is not more mystic than the 'hero' of the
ultra-materialists who is declared so; ‘matter’ in its last analysis assumes
character of a wave. The teams of researchers are yet far from the knowledge
about the fundamental nature of the so-called matter. As for matter itself,
intentionally it does not cloak itself in mystery; God also does not. Both hypotheses
mark out our own limitations.
- Does God support
cruelty?
It is true that a scientist avoid wordings such as as 'kind'
or 'cruel' Nature. Nature is neutral. God shares no other description, but when
these adjectives were employed, as point above explains, it was easier for the masses,
common people to conceive of God in that way. That theme awaits amends and if a
dogmatist is unwilling to adjust, he could be safely ignored.
- Does God encourage
lawlessness?
In no system of society including Marxists; criminals are
absent. Injustice prevails at the higher levels, though as an exception. No
sane and responsible critic, however, assails the institution of 'Government'
itself and as a whole, in favor of anarchy. The code of conduct is framed. Its
violation is and should be punished. Creator sponsoring lawlessness then
amounts to abuse of terms.
- Is God Egoistic?
Answer goes with '4' above.
- Does God employ double
dealing?
This leads to a controversy on reconciliation between
causation and free-will. In a democratic set up, do we not curtail individual
liberty on acceptance of causal code promulgated by the State? Is there any
fundamental contradiction between the exercise of law and liberty that gives
encouragement to a citizen to lift up self? The more balance between the two is
struck, the better. (The simile is to be taken in a limited sense.)
Appendix of this work to a modest degree, Appendix A of
'Purpose of the Universe' to a great extent and 'Science and Philosophy', yet
another title of this series, particularly its Appendix, touch this problem in
all its perspective. (Swami Vijnananand (S.V.) has dealt in details on aspect
such as Causality, Free Will, Entropy, Death, Rebirth, Happiness, Disease,
Nature’s Rules and Human Life etc. in his other books under the series of “New
Way Philosophy”).
- Does God disfavor rationalism?
A rationalist accepts religion, not because of any dogma;
but because it can be reconciled with the spirit or essence of science.
Therefore, in case an assertion in religious doctrine supporting reason stands
refuted in some other or in the same text, it is for the dogmatic to explain
the odd situation. It is not the responsibility of an open-minded who shares
belief in religions only because of (and to the limit of) their rational
character. No entity other than God should be responsible for having equipped
man with reason, his most enviable tool, which places him above the animal
world, Science comprehends narrow scope of human intellect; yet puts it to
service, it being the best available contrivance (plan, design, device) having
potentialities to develop itself. And, argues science, its ignorance is no
knowledge of the benighted (un-enlightened, intellectually ignorant). Bigoted (intolerant)
spokesmen of religious creeds invite serious setback to human lot deprived of
use of intellect - as the whole of chapter three (of this book) reiterates.
Has God Ego, Because His Devotees Pray Him?
(l) Is prayer to God to get what we need?
Points 6, 7, 8 above and conclusion of chapter nine of the
book under discussion conclusively disclaim wishful prayers from God's domain.
(2) Should we pray so that we should remember Him?
The Almighty would appreciate the whole of your life turned
into a Prayer. Instead, the devotees reserve days for committing sins and
minutes for prayer, in the hope that the latter will cancel the former. A
hollow mockery of prayer indeed! Prayer assumes some meaning only when the
devotee approaches God after doing his duty as a formality. It is self-assurance
of being conscious of the divine code. In any case, mechanical prayer is
devaluation of essence of prayer.
(3) Prayer only after due discharge of obligation.
Prayer and duty as its price are linked up and indeed prayer
becomes thanksgiving for intrinsic justice in causal laws. The seeker, at
highly elevated level of his progress himself ceases to Pray for worldly
benefits. In any case, no prophet has ever unconditionally prescribed a mechanical
prayer.
Kindness of God, Implicit!
Beyond all questions, God is gracious; but it does not
extend beyond the range of equitable regulations, He has laid down. "Every
cause shall bear an appropriate effect, no more, no less" pronounces He.
And for the benefit of an elevated paragon He adds, "When bewildered of or
tired of 'effects', produce no cause itself."
What a candid piece of advice! The excelling beauty of it
is: after the preliminary hint, he interferes no more. He dominates no way like
a despot. His rules have crowned each man as his own master. There lies His
infinite benevolent character and nowhere else does it exist, nor is it
necessary.
The headings of the other chapters of the book are:
Chapter 3 Gaps in Religion.
Chapter 4 Purpose and Partiality.
Chapter 5 No cruelty and ego. Absolute Kindness.
Chapter 6 Causality and Existence beyond life.
Chapter 7 Is cycle of existence valid?
Chapter 8
Neutrality, Truth, Knowledge, Causality.
Chapter 9 Science
and God, Conclusions.
Appendix A God
believer answers Non-believer.
Appendix B Follow
five ways to God or redeem yourself from the curse of knowledge.
Vijay R. Joshi.
