ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION Part III
ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION — Part III
Argument from History
ATHEISTIC thinkers dismiss religion as being unfounded in fact. They maintain that it springs from man’s desire to find meaning in the universe. While the urge to find an explanation is not in itself wrong, they hold that the inadequacy of our predecessors’ knowledge led them to wrong conclusions, namely, the existence of a God or gods, the notions that creation and destruction were a function of the godhead, that man’s fate was of concern to God, that there was a life after death in heaven or hell, as warranted by the morality of man’s life on earth, and that all thinking on these matters must necessarily be regulated by religion. Here we examine the arguments from History against God or religion.
The Argument from History
Modern atheistic thinkers believe that, in the light of advanced learning, man is now in a position to make a re-appraisal of traditional ways of thought and to rectify errors of interpretation, just as in secular matters he has already exploded myths and overturned false hypotheses whenever facts and experience have forced the truth upon him.
All those things, which were formerly attributed to supernatural forces, are now wholly explainable in terms of natural causes, modern thinking having it that the “Discovery” of God was a mere assumption arising from ignorance. With the spread of knowledge, this belief has automatically disappeared.
That which is a revelation of reality is an ideal in itself, and its history with all its manifestations has to be studied in this light.
Physics, psychology and history have proved conclusively that all those events which man explained in terms of the existence of a God or gods, or some abstract ‘Power’ had entirely different causes, but that man, steeped in ignorance, continued to speak of them in terms of religious mystery.
Some anti-religionists use an argument from history against the reality of religion. They maintain that it was the particular historical Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 9 circumstances in which man found himself which gave birth to religious concepts. In ancient times, before the discoveries of modern science, man had no means of saving himself from natural calamities, such as floods, storms and epidemics. Frequently finding himself in insecure positions, he pictured to himself extraordinary forces which could be invoked in times of need, which could be trusted to come to his rescue in the face of disaster and which would act as a panacea of all ills. In order that society might be well integrated and its members firmly focussed around one central point, a cohesive force was needed. Deities of one sort or the other fulfilled these needs and man, then, began to worship such gods who were considered superior to all human beings and whose favours had to be sought as a matter of religious duty by all individuals. The Encyclopaedia of Social Science has this to say:
Political and civic forces also permanently influence the development of religion. The attributes and the names bestowed upon the gods automatically change in accordance with the form of the State. The God as King is merely a transposition of the human as king, the divine kingdom merely a transposition of the earthly kingdom. Moreover, since the prince or king is supreme judge, the deity is likewise clothed with the judicial function and vested with the final decision as to human guilt or innocence.
Thus the condition of a particular historical period and the interaction of the human mind with prevailing circumstances gave birth to concepts which are collectively known as religion. Religion is a product of the human mind resulting from ignorance and a sense of helplessness in the face of external forces. Julian Huxley sums it up thus: “Religion is the product of a certain type of interaction between man and his environment.”
The moral or religious impulse is extraordinarily strong.
Since that particular environment, which was responsible for bringing about this interaction has either disappeared or is disappearing; there is no further justification for the perpetuation of religion. To this Huxley adds:
The concept of God has reached the limits of its usefulness: it cannot evolve further. Man to carry the burden of religion created supernatural powers. From diffuse magic manna to 10 Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 personal spirits; from spirits to gods; from gods to God—so crudely speaking, the evolution has gone. The particular phase of that evolution which concerns us is that of God. In one period of our Western civilization the gods were necessary fictions, useful hypotheses by which to live.
The Communist philosophy too holds religion to be a historical hoax. Since Communism studies history exclusively in the light of economics, to it, all historical factors were offshoots of the economic situation. It holds that it was the feudal and capitalistic systems, prevailing in the past, which led to the birth of religion. Now that these outdated systems are dying a natural death, religions should also be treated as dead along with it. As Engels puts it, moral concepts, in the last analysis, are the product of contemporary economic conditions. Human history is the history of class wars, in which the ruling classes have been exploiting the backward classes, and religion and morals were invented to provide an ideological basis for safeguarding the interests of the ruling class. According to the Communist Manifesto, laws, morals, and religion—all are the fraudulent innovations of the bourgeoisie under the cloak of which most of its vested interests are hidden.
It is impossible to satisfy those people whose bias, in favour of materialistic reasoning is so strong that they are unable to keep their minds open to self-evident facts.
Addressing the third All-Russia Congress (October, 1920) Lenin had said: of course, they did not believe in God. They knew very well that the church authorities, landlords and bourgeois who spoke with reference to God, were simply interested in safeguarding their own interests as exploiters… They denied all such moral laws which had been borrowed from a Super-human power, or were not based on the concept of class. They called this a hoax, an illusion, the befogging of the minds of farmers and labourers in order to serve the interests of landlords and capitalists. They asserted that their moral code was subject to the class struggle of the Proletariat alone, the source of their moral principle being the interest of the class-struggle of the Proletariat.
This is the case put forward by the antagonists of religion, on the basis of which a large number of people, in our modern age have rejected religion. An American professor of psychology sums it up thus: “Science has shown religion to be history’s cruellest and wickedest hoax.”
Analysis
Scholars, who study religion in the context of history or the social sciences suffer from the fundamental drawback of not looking at religion via the correct perspective. In doing so, their views become thoroughly distorted. They are like people, who stand in a crooked position in order to look at a square, and, viewing it from an acute angle, decide it is rectangular. The square is still a square, it is just that the viewers’ standpoint is wrong, or merely irrelevant.
It was from just such a skewed angle that T.R. Miles asserted that ‘The religion is the product of a certain type of interaction between man and his environment.’ The basic mistake these scholars make is to study religion as an objective issue, that is, they collect indiscriminately all the historical material that goes under the name of religion, and then form an opinion about religion in the light of whatever material has come their way. Thus they take up a wrong position at the very outset.
Miles’ summing up is that ‘Religion’ like any other subject, can be treated as an objective problem, and studied by the method of science. The first step is to make a list of the ideas and practices associated with different religions—gods and demons, sacrifice, prayer, belief in a future life, taboos and moral rules in life. It is like making a collection of animals and plants. Science always begins in this manner, but it cannot stop at this level; it inevitably seeks to penetrate deeper to make an analysis.
The concept of God began with Monotheism.
This analysis may go further in two directions. It may seek a further understanding of religion as it now exists, or it may adopt the historical method and search for an explanation of the present in the past.
With regard to the historical approach, it is clear that religion, like other social activities, evolves. Further, its evolution is determined by momentum, its inner logic and the influence of the material and social conditions of the period. As an example of the first, take the tendency from polytheism towards monotheism: granted the theistic premise, this tendency seems almost inevitably to declare itself in the course of time.
On one hand religion, consequently, comes to be regarded as a mere social process, rather than as a revelation of reality. That which is a revelation of reality is an ideal in itself, and its history with all its 12 Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 manifestations has to be studied in this light. On the other hand, that which is only a social process has no inherent ideal. The response of society alone determines its position. Anything that enjoys the status of a social norm or social tradition can retain its position only as long as society gives it a de facto status. If society discards it and adopts any other practice in its place, then only its historical interest can survive and its importance as a social tradition falls into oblivion.
But the case of religion is vastly different from this scenario. As the eminent physician, Fred Hoyle puts it, “This moral or religious impulse, whatever we choose to call it, is extraordinarily strong. When faced by opposition, and even by powerful political attempts at suppression, it obstinately refuses to lie down and die. One often comes across statements that religion is a primitive superstition that modern man can well do without. Yet if the impulse were truly primitive in a biological sense (for instance patriotic loyalty to the group in which one happens to live is primitive), we would surely expect to see it in other animals. As far as I know, no one has advanced any evidence for this idea. The religious impulse appears to be unique to man, and indeed seems to have become stronger in pre-history the more advanced man became in his intellectual attainments. Admittedly the trend has reversed over the recent past, but the change over the past two centuries may well prove to be impermanent…Stripped of the many fanciful adornments with which religion has become surrounded, does it not amount to an instruction within us that expressed rather simply might read as follows: You are derived from something “Out there” in the sky. Seek it and you will find much more than you expect.”
The picture of life and the universe, which takes shape in our minds on accepting religion is a very beautiful and gladdening one.
We cannot, therefore, study religion in the same fashion as we take stock of our household goods, modes of conveyance, clothing, housing, etc. This is because religion is an entity in itself, which is either accepted, rejected or accepted in a partial or distorted form by society of its own free will. As a result, religion remains the same in its essence while assuming a diversity of forms which evolve according to the practices of particular societies. It is wrong, therefore, to classify all the different forms of religion prevalent in different societies under the common heading of “Religion”. We shall illustrate this with reference of democracy.
Democracy is a system of government by the people, directly or by representation, and a country may be said to be truly democratic only when its political organization abides by this criterion. Now if an approach to the understanding of democracy is made by examining all those countries who call their governments democratic, and then trying by a process of induction to form a clear picture of it on the basis of whatever common denominators present themselves, the image which will emerge, rather than being crystal clear, will be like muddied water stirred up by some floundering animal. Democracy, as a term, will then be meaningless. Consider the democracies of Britain, America, China and Egypt. Do they really have anything in common? In what way is the democracy of India similar to the democracy of Pakistan? The term ‘Democracy’ becomes even more confusing if all the varieties of democracy in the world today are placed within an evolutionary framework. A study of the development of democracy in France— it’s very birthplace—will show that at a later stage of its evolution, it was synonymous with the military dictatorship of General de Gaulle (1890-1970).
The picture of reality which forms in consonance with an anti-religious philosophy is completely out of step with the human mind.
Such a study of religion, in which the process of induction is unlikely to yield correct results, might well bring one to the conclusion that the idea of God can be dispensed with, because the history of religion presents the example of Buddhism—a religion without a God. Today, the idea is widely advocated that religion should be studied, but that God, as a possibility, should be excluded. Advocates of this course tend to argue that even if religion is necessary for the inculcation of discipline, belief in God should not be regarded as compulsory. They feel that a godless religion serves the same purpose. Citing Buddhism, they maintain that, in the present advanced age; such a form of religious structure is more suitable to the needs of society. To such thinkers, society, along with its political and economic objectives is itself the God of the modern age. ‘Parliament is the Prophet of this God, through which He informs mankind of His will, and dams and factories rather than mosques and churches are His places of worship.’
The study of religion, by the evolutionary method holds it to be progressing from belief in God to denial of God (e.g. Buddhism). Scholars, who adhere to this view first collect all the material which 14 Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 has been attributed over the ages to religion, then, independently of those, whose approach is essentially an internal one, they arrange this material in an evolutionary sequence, intentionally omitting any details which might cast doubt on its validity.
For instance, after extensive research, anthropologists and sociologists discovered that the concept of God began with polytheism and, progressing gradually, was developed into monotheism. But, according to them, this cycle of evolution has turned in the reverse direction, turning the concept of monotheism into contradiction. The concept of a ‘Multiplicity of gods’, according to them, at least had a certain intrinsic value in that, while putting their faith in ‘Different gods’, people could live in harmony; acknowledge the existence of the gods of other communities. But the doctrine of ‘One God’ has naturally negated all other gods and their believers, thus giving birth to the concept of a ‘Higher Religion’ which, in turn, gave rise to unending wars among the various groups and nations. Thus the concept of God, having evolved in the wrong direction, has dug its own grave in accordance with the law of evolution.
The materialistic interpretation of life also dispenses with any definite criterion for the judgement of good and evil.
The fact that the concept of God started with monotheism has been totally omitted in this evolutionary sequence. According to known history, Noah was the first prophet who, it has been established, exhorted people to believe in one God. Moreover, ‘Polytheism’ does not mean a multiplicity in the absolute sense, as is commonly understood. No nation has ever been ‘Polytheist’ in the sense that it believed in many gods of the same order. In fact, polytheism implies a hierarchy with one ‘Supreme God’ at the top and his entourage of demi-gods spreading downwards from Him on the rungs of the divine ladder. Polytheism has always carried with it the concept of a ‘God of gods’. This shows how baseless are the claims of this so-called evolutionary religion.
The Marxist approach to history is even more bereft of meaning, being based on the hypothesis that it is economic conditions, alone, which are the real factors which shape man. According to Marx, religion came into existence in an age of feudalism and capitalism. Since these systems were tyrannical and fostered exploitation, the moral and religious concepts which evolved under them had, of necessity, reflected their environment. They were no more than doctrines which condoned and Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 15 upheld exploitation. But this theory does not, academically, carry any weight. Nor does experience testify to it. This theory, based on a total denial of the human will, regards man simply as a product of economic conditions. Like the soap-cakes manufactured in a factory, man is moulded in the factory of the environment. He does not act with an independent mind, but simply conforms to whatever conditioning he has been subjected to. If this were an incontrovertible fact, how could it have been possible for Marx, himself the product of a ‘Capitalist society’, to revolt against the economic conditions prevailing in his time? If the contemporary economic system gave birth to religion, why not believe then, according to the same logic, that Marxism too is the product of the same conditions? If the stand taken by Marxism on religion is correct, why should this not be applicable to Marxism itself? It follows that this theory is absurd. There is no scientific and rational proof to support it.
Experience too has exposed the false premises of this theory. The example of the erstwhile U.S.S.R., where this ideology had been predominant for sixty-five years, will serve to illustrate our point.
Religious thought affords a glowing ray of hope, giving to both life and death a joyous and meaningful radiance.
This half-a-century old experience clearly shows that the systems of production and exchange have nothing to do with the shaping of ideas. Had the human mind been subservient to the system of production, and had ideas taken shape in accordance with it, a communist state like the Soviet Union ought, strictly speaking, to have curbed the tendencies to oppress and exploit. Thus the whole argument of the modern age is nothing short of sophistry in the garb of scientific reasoning—a patchwork, a hotchpotch of discordant elements. Of course, the ‘Scientific Method’ has been adopted to study these ‘Facts’, but this, by itself, cannot arrive at the correct results. Other essential factors must be taken into account. That is to say, that, if the scientific method is applied, but applied only to half-truths and one-sided data, in spite of its ostensible bona fides from the intellectual standpoint, it is bound to yield results which are far from being accurate.
The picture of life and the universe, which takes shape in our minds upon accepting religion, is a very beautiful and gladdening one. This, in itself, establishes the truth of religion and the falsity of anti-religious theories. It conforms to the noble ideas of man in the very same way, as the material universe is echoed in mathematical formulae. On the 16 Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 contrary, the picture of reality which forms in consonance with an antireligious philosophy is completely out of step with the human mind. On this point, J.W.N. Sullivan has made a very pertinent quotation from Bertrand Russell:
That man is the product of such causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noon-day brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system. And that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
When religious concepts find a harmonious echo in the human psyche, it is a proof that this was the reality which human nature was in search of.
This extract sums up the irreligious, materialistic school of thought. According to such thinking, our prospects in life are darkened by gloom and despair. The materialistic interpretation of life also dispenses with any definite criterion for the judgement of good and evil. It justifies the dropping of bombs on human beings, the use of flame-throwers and chemical warfare, to name but a few of the scourges of modern times. This is not considered outrageous, tyrannical or bestially aggressive. After all, human beings have to die one way or another. Religious thought, by contrast, affords a glowing ray of hope, giving to both life and death a joyous and meaningful radiance. In this way it fulfils our psychological needs. When a scientist propounds a theory, which is found to conform to a mathematical formula, he is convinced that what he has discovered is a reality. Similarly, when religious concepts find a harmonious echo in the human psyche, this is a proof that this was the reality which human nature was in search of. It gives us such a sense of fulfilment that we are left with no real grounds for denying its truth. To quote the words of Earl Chester Rex, an American mathematician:
I use the accepted principle in science which governs the choice between two or more conflicting theories. According to this Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 17 principle, the theory which explains all the pertinent facts in the simplest way is adopted. This same principle was used, long ago, to decide between the Ptolemaic, or earth-centred theory and the Copernican theory which claims that the sun is the centre of the solar system. The Ptolemaic theory was so involved and so much more complicated than the Copernican that the earthcentred idea was discarded.
Our modern minds have a sort of bias in favour of the materialistic explanation of the facts.
Admittedly this argument would not be regarded as fool proof by many. The concept of God and religion will never fit into the narrow frame of their materialistic minds. Yet their dissatisfaction is not really due to any lack of sound reasoning behind religion. No, the actual reason for their disaffection is that their prejudiced minds are not prepared to accept religious reasoning. Sir James Jeans, at the end of his book, Mysterious Universe correctly remarked: ‘Our modern minds have a sort of bias in favour of the materialistic explanation of the facts’.
In his book, Witness, Whittaker Chambers tells of how he was watching his little daughter one day, when he found that he had unconsciously become aware of the shape of her ear. He thought to himself how impossible it was that such delicate convolutions could have come about by chance. They could have been created only by premeditated design. But he pushed this thought out of his agnostic mind, because he realised that the next step in logical sequence would have to be: design presupposes God—a thesis he was not yet ready to accept. With reference to this incident, Thomas David Park, a research chemist, formerly Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Stanford Research Institute, writes: ‘I have known many scientists among my professors and research colleagues, who have similar thoughts about observed facts in chemistry and physics.’
It is impossible to satisfy those scholars whose bias, in favour of materialistic reasoning is so strong that they are unable to keep their minds open to self-evident facts. There is a particular reason for the bias, about which George Herbert Blount, an American physicist has this to say:
Conviction of the reasonableness of theism and the tenuousness of atheism usually in itself does not cause a man to accept practical theism. There seems to be an almost innate suspicion 18 Spirit of Islam Issue 27 March 2015 that the recognition of Deity will somehow rob one of freedom. To the Scholar, who cherishes intellectual liberty, any thought of abridged freedom is especially dreadful.
In much the same vein, the concept of prophethood has been described by Julian Huxley as an ‘Intolerable demonstration of superiority’. That is, the acceptance of someone as a prophet implies his elevation to such a high status that his word becomes the word of God, giving him, in consequence, the right to impose his will on the people, the right to make people accept his word as law. But then that is what it means to be a prophet, and when man is the creature and not the Creator, he is in the position of being the humble slave of God, and not God, how can this situation be changed or avoided simply on the basis of concepts which are the result of ignorance or wishful thinking?
There seems to be an almost innate suspicion that the recognition of Deity will somehow rob one of freedom.
Cressy Morrison asks with reason in his book, Man Does not Stand Alone, ‘How much must man advance before he fully realises the existence of a Supreme Intelligence, grasps His goodness that we exist, assumes his full part in destiny and strives to live up to the highest code he is capable of understanding without attempting to analyse God’s motive, or describe His attributes?’
Things are as they are. We cannot change the hard reality: we simply have to acknowledge it, accept it, and bow to it. Now, if we are not to adopt an ostrich-like attitude, our best course is to believe in actuality, rather than deny it. By denying the truth, it is man who loses. His denial of the truth in no way alters, harms, or diminishes it. The truth is the truth.
In the seventh century, God had opened up new possibilities, which were at once availed of by the Prophet of Islam and his companions. As a result, monotheism attained intellectual dominance and the polytheism of that civilization was banished forever. In a like manner, through a modern scientific revolution, God has once again created new opportunities. If alerted to these trends, people of a religious bent of mind can quickly seize these opportunities, and can certainly turn the tide against atheism and set up monotheism in its place. In so doing, they will ultimately be setting history upon one of the finest courses of our human era.
