Why attack religion

Why attack religion in the philosophical
sense
Bhagat singh

I have been advised by various people, friends and foes alike, that
religion is a personal affair and must therefore not be critisized. I
have been told that "one should refrain from attacking or critisizing
the foundations of religion".

For those who know me personally my response is already too well known:
I disagree. The reasons for my disagreement are the subject of this
brief essay.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that belief (or disbelief) in any
philosophical method is a subjective choice (the fact that one's
subjective choices are directly influenced by one's objective
reality is an almost obvious fact). It is subjectively possible to
believe that a person is endowed with supernatural powers, that the
earth is flat or that the sky is a roof supported by pillars. The entire
history of mankind is filled with supernatural hogwash that could baffle
the most brilliant of minds. However, my fundamental thesis is that it
is possible, and indeed desirable (as I shall show shortly) to question
subjective choices. A subjective choice must have some semblance of
objectivity to it in order to be classified within the category of
"truth".

Where do we come from? Do we have a purpose in life? Is there something
out there that governs our life? Does God exist? I'll come back to
that in a little while, but first:

Why am I so wound up about belief in god?

I consider religious explanations for questions such as "where do we
come from", "do we have a purpose in life" and "where is
the world going" as alternatives to scientific explanations.
Consider the following:

When asked the question, "do we have a purpose in life", the
religious person would automatically respond by saying that the purpose
of this life is to please god and pray for a comfortable place in
heaven. On the contrary, when a scientist is confronted with the
"purpose-of- life" question he would respond by telling us that
the purpose of life is the propagation of DNA, since natural selection
favours species which are more likely to propagate their DNA. I confess
that this explanation is not as uplifting or morale boosting as the
former.

It must be understood that even though belief or disbelief in any
explanation is a matter of subjective choices; not all subjective
choices are true. As soon as I utter these words, I see a crowd of
post-modernists jumping in the air as if bitten by a host of bees in all
the wrong places. They claim that it is a matter of "respecting
individual choices". While it is perfectly reasonable to allow
freedom of conscience as a philosophy of individual well-being, it is
not a perfectly acceptable theory of social governance for the simple
reason that subjective choices are influenced by the objective realities
that the individuals living in society face. For a society that is
injected with the virus of religion, god and angels on an hourly and
daily basis, the choice of freedom from superstition is never there. The
question of individual "choice" could only arise, had human
beings been GIVEN the choice to choose between Atheism and superstition.
For the majority of the people of the world, living and growing up in
reactionary environments, the choice of disbelief is never there.
Therefore, it is immature, and frankly quite juvenile to suggest that
individual "choices" must be respected. Just as I would not
respect someone who believes that "women are inferior" or
"blacks are an inferior race" for the simple reason that both
these statements are false, it is equally unwise to suggest that at the
philosophical level, attempts must not be made to defeat the decadent
theory of religion for the simple reason that it is against the notions
of "individual freedom".

In the final analysis, all subjective choices must pass the test of
objectivity; they must be able to prove that they deserve to exist or
must perish. Nay more. Conscious attempts must be made to pulverise and
annihilate such theories at the philosophical level. Not for one moment
am I suggesting cruelty and brutality as an instrument of oppression
against religious people. Not for one second do I believe in such
measures. What I am suggesting is a philosophical war against religious
ideas.

Now that we have understood that we must counter religious theories not
to "slight individual freedom" as is wrongly assumed by our
post-modernist friends, but with the purpose of finding the truth it is
reasonable to assume that the post-modernists will respond by saying:

"What do you care if a particular philosophy works for an individual?
Each person must find his or her own truth and must seek happiness. If a
theory gives you comfort and happiness, who cares?"

The flaw in the above argument may not seem immediately clear to those
of us who are fond of utilitarian approches to political economy and
philosophy. The fact is that the above argument assumes that the primary
purpose of philosophy is to give comfort to humans even if it comes at
the cost of letting go of the truth. Surely no one can deny the
spiritual satisfaction that a believer finds in the consolation that
there is a god up there who cares, and things will be better in the life
hereafter. So why bother? Why does it matter?

It matters if we are willing to accept this: Human beings must seek the
truth, even if it is against our personal whims, and even if it is not
as pleasing as a delusive idea". Just as it is unwise for a cancer
patient to live under the illusion that he/she will be cured
automatically, or the theory that jumping from the mountain top will
make wings appear in place of arms is destined to result in an accident
in practice, it is similarly unwise to seek happiness in illusions. We
know for a fact that the use of drugs and alcohol gives humans a sense
of happiness. Just as the elated experience of alcohol abuse gives a
delusional and false sense of happiness, god, the belief in religion
provides a comfort zone to comfort seekers. Just as the happiness
derived from alcohol consumption is delusional; so too is the utility
driven from belief in god. I would much rather live in an unhappy
society (not for one moment am I suggesting that rational societies are
destined to be less happier) than to live in a society that lives on a
lie.

Therefore the question of countering religious ideas is not a question
of showing disrespect for individual choices. Nor is it a matter of
subjective wellbeing. It is a matter of finding out what is true and
what is not. It is a matter of differentiating between fact and fiction.

I, for one, am not for one second willing to settle for "morale
boosting", "comforting" and utilitarian approaches to philosophy if they
are false. Are you?
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post