Religion for the argumentative IITian

Disclaimer: Religion is a sensitive subject and I have tried to keep this blog post as unbiased as possible. It consists entirely of my own analysis and since my factual knowledge of world religions is limited, some of the examples may not be universal.

For the longest time, I was a Sikh boy who questioned the basis of religion and the existence of God but chose to play along with the practices that were part and parcel of a Sikh life. Having the Guru Granth Sahib in our home (the Sikh equivalent of having a small shrine at home) made certain practices routine. This included saying a small prayer before leaving for school, a slightly more elaborate exercise on birthdays and anniversaries, etc. As a kid, even though I regularly followed these routines, the cynic inside me did not cease to question religion. I remember having a very long and tiring debate with my mother and grandfather on the origin and relevance of religion. I came up with fairly coherent arguments without having read any works on theology and that was perhaps the beginning of my confused relationship with spirituality. But the inveigling power of routine is indeed very strong and I was slowly turning into a believer.

The real metamorphosis came about when I went to college and began my life outside the home for the first time. The influence of my parents and grandparents was weaker than before and I was not following the religious activities that had become routine at home. Even though I was still very connected with the cultural aspects of being a Sikh, including celebrating festivals at the local Gurudwara, it was easier to stoke the skeptic inside me than it had been at home.

The privilege of having parents that allowed me to think freely made possible many more debates like the one I had at home many years ago. While the reason to initiate each debate might have been different, all of them have involved arguments that were inspired from the first time, and the conclusion has been the same. Hence, I feel that before I expose myself to the works of scholars, I should pen down my own thoughts on this intriguing subject.

I’ll start with the conclusion of all my deliberations. I believe everyone needs a value system to guide the innumerable decisions that one takes on a daily basis. A lot of these decisions are not straightforward and religion acts as a whetstone in these circumstances. Against this background, religion can be viewed as the consolidation of the acceptable moral values of society as a whole. This is perhaps evident from the fact that the basic tenets of most religions are similar and the differences that do exist are resolvable from the unique circumstances from which the particular religion emerged. Sikhism, for example, denounces idol worship because, at the time, idol worship had taken precedence over the more fundamental aspects of spiritualism. It may thus be argued that the founders of the numerous religions were non-conformists who were essentially trying to lay down a moral code for their followers which improved upon the prevalent one. This ‘morality’ justification for the existence of religion, in my opinion, is the most practical and persuasive for a skeptic like me.

This was the easy part. But if religion is all about morality and ethics, why do we need the complication of God and deities. In my opinion, this need arose because men are both weak and distrustful of their fellow humans. The pioneers who saw the need to introduce an ethical code probably raised that their co-habitants on this planet would not acknowledge instructions from a mortal being. Since man had always feared powers greater than him that he did not understand, they found it convenient to appeal to that existing belief which would validate their teachings. So, preachers called themselves either incarnations or messengers of God who were spreading His word and thus found more takers for what they had to offer. At the same time, humans needed someone or something to blame for their circumstances because this made it easier for them to cope with difficult times. Trying to understand how their own actions and the probabilistic nature of this world could collude to result in their present state was too complicated. But the most important function of this supernatural being was to act as a sentry. Receiving a doctrine from a divine source was not enough. It needed tone coupled with the fear of retribution from such an all-powerful being. This was the most powerful mechanism of control that could be devised and it worked perfectly to keep religious followers in line. It is no surprise that almost every religion has some concept of heaven and hell because the system of reward and doom works very effectively.

The convenient and often unconvincing explanations that religion offers for most experiences in one’s life conform to this origin story. The one exposition that I have encountered most often is that God rewards sincere actions but when events do not unfold in one’s favour in spite of honest effort, it is because something better is waiting to happen. While the first half of the statement encourages an incontestable instruction for life, the second part is hard to digest. I feel that the latter follows from the irresolute nature of human beings where they need to be assured of reward, even if it is in the future, for them to focus on the present. It is harder to accept that life is unfair than to believe in the afterlife and the recompense that awaits there.

All this time spent in analysing religion has not been only about finding the shortcomings of the believers though. It occurred to me that some of the practices associated with religion may have a more scientific basis than appears at first glance. The most relatable example is that of prayer or ‘kirtan’. It is advised that while praying, one should focus on the script and not let one’s thoughts wander. This is essentially a form of meditation, an activity whose benefits are not unknown. Most religions also encourage rising early in the morning and the circadian rhythm is the medical basis that explains this recommendation. I am not one of the right-wing zealots claiming that the ancients had knowledge of advanced medicine. All I am saying is that the religious leaders perhaps observed the benefits of these practices and hence found it useful to connect it with the faith.

The reader might wonder that if I believe that following a religion assists an individual in leading a more secure life, why would I question the many aspects of it? To answer this, I need to address a rather peculiar side of my personality. I am someone who looks for reason in everything and the deconstruction of life around me is a favourite pastime. I could not accept religion on its face value, especially since its foundation is a mystic being whose existence could not be proven and any evidence given for the same was extremely shaky. I keep on having these debates with my mother because I find it hard to accept that in spite of being a student of science she chose to acknowledge religion. Having said that, I realise that the foundation for availing the merits of religion is faith. If one anatomises doctrines in such a manner, the inherent mechanisms for ensuring compliance become weak, thus failing to have their desired effect. This leaves one at the disposal of one’s inner strength. Since I haven’t had any major upheavals in life and my parents have always been there for support, I haven’t had an opportunity to test mine. This poses a unique dichotomy for me. While I want to continue to understand the origin of religion and theism, I am wary that it might leave me defenceless in times when I need the support.

The search is on…

P.S.: It might be the case that my views echo some other scholarship on this subject but I assure the reader that this piece is entirely original.