Thoughts on economics and liberty

Tag: God

We may still “need” God, but not to explain the universe

The God hypothesis is now being used less than ever before.We don't want an "explanation" (God) that "explains" everything but predicts nothing.

Here's an excellent write up on this topic. 

True, we still have a few key gaps in our understanding, but God has essentially been driven away into a corner. God is only "needed" to explain two main things: (a) How is there something and not nothing? and (b) What happens to us after death?

These two residual questions have perfectly valid non-God explanations, which could potentially undermine God and drive "Him" even further into a corner – with absolutely nothing to "do". 

It appears to me that God and religion will ultimately revert to their main job: of psychological therapy when we are in desperate strife. God servers a social purpose and that's where "His" value lies.

God and religion exist to address our ignorance and emotional shortcomings: the weakest aspects of our nature. 

Where we are able to use our rational mind, God has become increasingly irrelevant.

Continue Reading

Vivekananda on science and reason – and a “reason-based” approach to the properties of God

I'm currently reviewing the section re: critical thinking and Hinduism in chapter 5 of DOF, and trying to determine to what extent is Hinduism compatible with reason. It was as part of this analysis that I put out the Suddhananda extract yesterday. I'm reviewing Vivekananda closely at the moment and would appreciate if you could guide me to evidence that Hinduism supports science and reason (or otherwise).

Vivekananda, like Suddhananda, does not oppose science (see also:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda#Vivekananda_and_science). Instead he INSISTS on the use of science and reason: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment" (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1, Raja-Yoga, Introductory (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/raja-yoga/raja-yoga_contents.htm)

It also appears that the Vedanta has some interesting scientific outcomes. Vivekananda seems to have anticipated both the discovery that matter is equivalent to energy (E = mc2), and of what may perhaps become, in due course, the most general theory of relativity – of an absolutely still universe, with eddies and motion within (like us, when we stand still but the cells of the body are in motion).

a) Matter is made of energy: "Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, it would stop from further progress, because it would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could not progress farther when it would discover one element out of which all other could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfill its services in discovering one energy of which all others are but manifestations …" (Parliament of Religions, 1896)

b) Relativity: "motion is a relative term. I move with regard to the chair, which does not move. There must be at least two to make motion.If this whole universe is taken as a unit there is no motion; with regard to what should it move? Thus the Absolute is unchangeable and immovable, and all the movements and changes are only in the phenomenal world, the limited." [Source – see the talk below]

I'm reproducing Vivekananda's entire talk on Reason and Religion (source). Btw, I've also converted Volume 1 of Vivekananda's complete works into Word (and will try to do so for other volumes in due course, since I do prefer Word to PDF/HTML versions). Should you wish to download a Word version, here is the link to Vol. 1 (2.6 MB).

Note, though, that despite having read a fair bit about it by now (although still very little), in my view the Vedanta stretches reason a bit too much. It should perhaps be considered as one of many hypotheses than a proven truth – despite Vivekananda's attempts to link it to science and reason. I therefore remain an agnostic, unpersuaded by Vivekananda's arguments, but I appreciate the fact that he realises that science is giving religion a run for the its money, and that unless religion turns to reason, it is unlikely to continue into the future.

REASON AND RELIGION

(Delivered in England)

A sage called Nârada went to another sage named Sanatkumâra to learn about truth, and Sanatkumara inquired what he had studied already. Narada answered that he had studied the Vedas, Astronomy, and various other things, yet he had got no satisfaction. Then there was a conversation between the two, in the course of which Sanatkumara remarked that all this knowledge of the Vedas, of Astronomy, and of Philosophy, was but secondary; sciences were but secondary. That which made us realise the Brahman was the supreme, the highest knowledge. This idea we find in every religion, and that is why religion always claimed to be supreme knowledge. Knowledge of the sciences covers, as it were, only part of our lives, but the knowledge which religion brings to us is eternal, as infinite as the truth it preaches. Claiming this superiority, religions have many times looked down, unfortunately, on all secular knowledge, and not only so, but many times have refused to be justified by the aid of secular knowledge. In consequence, all the world over there have been fights between secular knowledge and religious knowledge, the one claiming infallible authority as its guide, refusing to listen to anything that secular knowledge has to say on the point, the other, with its shining instrument of reason, wanting to cut to pieces everything religion could bring forward. This fight has been and is still waged in every country.
Religions have been again and again defeated, and almost exterminated. The worship of the goddess of Reason during the French Revolution was not the first manifestation of that phenomenon in the history of humanity, it was a re-enactment of what had happened in ancient times, but in modern times it has assumed greater proportions. The physical sciences are better equipped now than formerly, and religions have become less and less equipped. The foundations have been all undermined, and the modern man, whatever he may say in public, knows in the privacy of his heart that he can no more “believe”.Believing certain things because an organised body of priests tells him to believe, believing because it is written in certain books, believing because his people like him to believe, the modern man knows to be impossible for him. There are, of course, a number of people who seem to acquiesce in the so-called popular faith, but we also know for certain that they do not think. Their idea of belief may be better translated as “not-thinking-carelessness”. This fight cannot last much longer without breaking to pieces all the buildings of religion.
The question is: Is there a way out? To put it in a more concrete form: Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better.If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific — as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry — but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.
People who deny the efficacy of any rationalistic investigation into religion seem to me somewhat to be contradicting themselves. For instance, the Christian claims that his religion is the only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. The Mohammedan makes the same claim for his religion; his is the only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. But the Christian says to the Mohammedan, “Certain parts of your ethics do not seem to be right. For instance, your books say, my Mohammedan friend, that an infidel may be converted to the religion of Mohammed by force, and if he will not accept the Mohammedan religion he may be killed; and any Mohammedan who kills such an infidel will get a sure entry into heaven, whatever may have been his sins or misdeeds.” The Mohammedan will retort by saying, “It is right for me to do so, because my book enjoins it. It will be wrong on my part not to do so.” The Christian says, “But my book does not say so.” The Mohammedan replies, “I do not know; I am not bound by the authority of your book; my book says, ‘Kill all the infidels’. How do you know which is right and which is wrong? Surely what is written in my book is right and what your book says, ‘Do not kill,’ is wrong. You also say the same thing, my Christian friend; you say that what Jehovah declared to the Jews is right to do, and what he forbade them to do is wrong. So say I, Allah declared in my book that certain things should be done, and that certain things should not be done, and that is all the test of right and wrong.” In spite of that the Christian is not satisfied; he insists on a comparison of the morality of the Sermon on the Mount with the morality of the Koran. How is this to be decided? Certainly not by the books, because the books, fighting between themselves, cannot be the judges. Decidedly then we have to admit that there is something more universal than these books, something higher than all the ethical codes that are in the world, something which can judge between the strength of inspirations of different nations. Whether we declare it boldly, clearly, or not — it is evident that here we appeal to reason.
Now, the question arises if this light of reason is able to judge between inspiration and inspiration, and if this light can uphold its standard when the quarrel is between prophet and prophet, if it has the power of understanding anything whatsoever of religion. If it has not, nothing can determine the hopeless fight of books and prophets which has been going on through ages; for it means that all religions are mere lies, hopelessly contradictory, without any constant idea of ethics. The proof of religion depends on the truth of the constitution of man, and not on any books. These books are the outgoings, the effects of man’s constitution; man made these books. We are yet to see the books that made man. Reason is equally an effect of that common cause, the constitution of man, where our appeal must be. And yet, as reason alone is directly connected with this constitution, it should be resorted to, as long as it follows faithfully the same.
What do I mean by reason? I mean what every educated man or woman is wanting to do at the present time, to apply the discoveries of secular knowledge to religion. The first principle of reasoning is that the particular is explained by the general, the general by the more general, until we come to the universal. For instance, we have the idea of law. If something happens and we believe that it is the effect of such and such a law, we are satisfied; that is an explanation for us. What we mean by that explanation is that it is proved that this one effect, which had dissatisfied us, is only one particular of a general mass of occurrences which we designate by the word “law”. When one apple fell, Newton was disturbed; but when he found that all apples fell, it was gravitation, and he was satisfied. This is one principle of human knowledge. I see a particular being, a human being, in the street. I refer him to the bigger conception of man, and I am satisfied; I know he is a man by referring him to the more general. So the particulars are to be referred to the general, the general to the more general, and everything at last to the universal, the last concept that we have, the most universal — that of existence. Existence is the most universal concept.
We are all human beings; that is to say, each one of us, as it were, a particular part of the general concept, humanity. A man, and a cat, and a dog, are all animals. These particular examples, as man, or dog, or cat, are parts of a bigger and more general concept, animal. The man, and the cat, and the dog, and the plant, and the tree, all come under the still more general concept, life. Again, all these, all beings and all materials, come under the one concept of existence, for we all are in it. This explanation merely means referring the particular to a higher concept, finding more of its kind. The mind, as it were, has stored up numerous classes of such generalisations. It is, as it were, full of pigeon-holes where all these ideas are grouped together, and whenever we find a new thing the mind immediately tries to find out its type in one of these pigeon-holes. If we find it, we put the new thing in there and are satisfied, and we are said to have known the thing. This is what is meant by knowledge, and no more. And if we do not find that there is something like it, we are dissatisfied, and have to wait until we find a further classification for it, already existing in the mind. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, knowledge is more or less classification. There is something more.
A second explanation of knowledge is that the explanation of a thing must come from inside and not from outside. There had been the belief that, when a man threw up a stone and it fell, some demon dragged it down. Many occurrences which are really natural phenomena are attributed by people to unnatural beings. That a ghost dragged down the stone was an explanation that was not in the thing itself, it was an explanation from outside; but the second explanation of gravitation is something in the nature of the stone; the explanation is coming from inside. This tendency you will find throughout modern thought; in one word, what is meant by science is that the explanations of things are in their own nature, and that no external beings or existences are required to explain what is going on in the universe. The chemist never requires demons, or ghosts, or anything of that sort, to explain his phenomena. The physicist never requires any one of these to explain the things he knows, nor does any other scientist. And this is one of the features of science which I mean to apply to religion. In this religions are found wanting and that is why they are crumbling into pieces. Every science wants its explanations from inside, from the very nature of things; and the religions are not able to supply this. There is an ancient theory of a personal deity entirely separate from the universe, which has been held from the very earliest time. The arguments in favour of this have been repeated again and again, how it is necessary to have a God entirely separate from the universe, an extra-cosmic deity, who has created the universe out of his will, and is conceived by religion to be its ruler. We find, apart from all these arguments, the Almighty God painted as the All-merciful, and at the same time, inequalities remain in the world. These things do not concern the philosopher at all, but he says the heart of the thing was wrong; it was an explanation from outside, and not inside. What is the cause of the universe? Something outside of it, some being who is moving this universe! And just as it was found insufficient to explain the phenomenon of the falling stone, so this was found insufficient to explain religion. And religions are falling to pieces, because they cannot give a better explanation than that.
Another idea connected with this, the manifestation of the same principle, that the explanation of everything comes from inside it, is the modern law of evolution. The whole meaning of evolution is simply that the nature of a thing is reproduced, that the effect is nothing but the cause in another form, that all the potentialities of the effect were present in the cause, that the whole of creation is but an evolution and not a creation. That is to say, every effect is a reproduction of a preceding cause, changed only by the circumstances, and thus it is going on throughout the universe, and we need not go outside the universe to seek the causes of these changes; they are within. It is unnecessary to seek for any cause outside. This also is breaking down religion. What I mean by breaking down religion is that religions that have held on to the idea of an extra-cosmic deity, that he is a very big man and nothing else, can no more stand on their feet; they have been pulled down, as it were.
Can there be a religion satisfying these two principles? I think there can be. In the first place we have seen that we have to satisfy the principle of generalisation. The generalisation principle ought to be satisfied along with the principle of evolution. We have to come to an ultimate generalisation, which not only will be the most universal of all generalisations, but out of which everything else must come. It will be of the same nature as the lowest effect; the cause, the highest, the ultimate, the primal cause, must be the same as the lowest and most distant of its effects, a series of evolutions. The Brahman of the Vedanta fulfils that condition, because Brahman is the last generalisation to which we can come. It has no attributes but is Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss — Absolute. Existence, we have seen, is the very ultimate generalisation which the human mind can come to. Knowledge does not mean the knowledge we have, but the essence of that, that which is expressing itself in the course of evolution in human beings or in other animals as knowledge. The essence of that knowledge is meant, the ultimate fact beyond, if I may be allowed to say so, even consciousness. That is what is meant by knowledge and what we see in the universe as the essential unity of things. To my mind, if modern science is proving anything again and again, it is this, that we are one — mentally, spiritually, and physically. It is wrong to say we are even physically different. Supposing we are materialists, for argument’s sake, we shall have to come to this, that the whole universe is simply an ocean of matter, of which you and I are like little whirlpools. Masses of matter are coming into each whirlpool, taking the whirlpool form, and coming out as matter again. The matter that is in my body may have been in yours a few years ago, or in the sun, or may have been the matter in a plant, and so on, in a continuous state of flux. What is meant by your body and my body? It is the oneness of the body. So with thought. It is an ocean of thought, one infinite mass, in which your mind and my mind are like whirlpools. Are you not seeing the effect now, how my thoughts are entering into yours, and yours into mine? The whole of our lives is one; we are one, even in thought. Coming to a still further generalisation, the essence of matter and thought is their potentiality of spirit; this is the unity from which all have come, and that must essentially be one. We are absolutely one; we are physically one, we are mentally one, and as spirit, it goes without saying, that we are one, if we believe in spirit at all.
This oneness is the one fact that is being proved every day by modern science. To proud man it is told: You are the same as that little worm there; think not that you are something enormously different from it; you are the same. You have been that in a previous incarnation, and the worm has crawled up to this man state, of which you are so proud. This grand preaching, the oneness of things, making us one with everything that exists, is the great lesson to learn, for most of us are very glad to be made one with higher beings, but nobody wants to be made one with lower beings. Such is human ignorance, that if anyone’s ancestors were men whom society honoured, even if they were brutish, if they were robbers, even robber barons, everyone of us would try to trace our ancestry to them; but if among our ancestors we had poor, honest gentlemen, none of us wants to trace our ancestry to them. But the scales are falling from our eyes, truth is beginning to manifest itself more and more, and that is a great gain to religion. That is exactly the teaching of the Advaita, about which I am lecturing to you. The Self is the essence of this universe, the essence of all souls; He is the essence of your own life, nay, “Thou art That”. You are one with this universe. He who says he is different from others, even by a hair’s breadth, immediately becomes miserable. Happiness belongs to him who knows this oneness, who knows he is one with this universe.
Thus we see that the religion of the Vedanta can satisfy the demands of the scientific world, by referring it to the highest generalisation and to the law of evolution. That the explanation of a thing comes from within itself is still more completely satisfied by Vedanta. The Brahman, the God of the Vedanta, has nothing outside of Himself; nothing at all. All this indeed is He: He is in the universe: He is the universe Himself. “Thou art the man, Thou art the woman, Thou art the young man walking in the pride of youth, Thou art the old man tottering in his step.” He is here. Him we see and feel: in Him we live, and move, and have our being. You have that conception in the New Testament. It is that idea, God immanent in the universe, the very essence, the heart, the soul of things. He manifests Himself, as it were, in this universe. You and I are little bits, little points, little channels, little expressions, all living inside of that infinite ocean of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. The difference between man and man, between angels and man, between man and animals, between animals and plants, between plants and stones is not in kind, because everyone from the highest angel to the lowest particle of matter is but an expression of that one infinite ocean, and the difference is only in degree. I am a low manifestation, you may be a higher, but in both the materials are the same.
You and I are both outlets of the same channel, and that is God; as such, your nature is God, and so is mine. You are of the nature of God by your birthright; so am I. You may be an angel of purity, and I may be the blackest of demons. Nevertheless, my birthright is that infinite ocean of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. So is yours. You have manifested yourself more today. Wait; I will manifest myself more yet, for I have it all within me. No extraneous explanation is sought; none is asked for. The sum total of this whole universe is God Himself. Is God then matter? No, certainly not, for matter is that God perceived by the five senses; that God as perceived through the intellect is mind; and when the spirit sees, He is seen as spirit. He is not matter, but whatever is real in matter is He. Whatever is real in this chair is He, for the chair requires two things to make it. Something was outside which my senses brought to me, and to which my mind contributed something else, and the combination of these two is the chair. That which existed eternally, independent of the senses and of the intellect, was the Lord Himself. Upon Him the senses are painting chairs, and tables, and rooms, houses, and worlds, and moons, and suns, and stars, and everything else. How is it, then, that we all see this same chair, that we are all alike painting these various things on the Lord, on this Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss? It need not be that all paint the same way, but those who paint the same way are on the same plane of existence and therefore they see one another’s paintings as well as one another. There may be millions of beings between you and me who do not paint the Lord in the same way, and them and their paintings we do not see.
On the other hand, as you all know, the modern physical researches are tending more and more to demonstrate that what is real is but the finer; the gross is simply appearance. However that may be, we have seen that if any theory of religion can stand the test of modern reasoning, it is the Advaita, because it fulfils its two requirements. It is the highest generalisation, beyond even personality, generalisation which is common to every being. A generalisation ending in the Personal God can never be universal, for, first of all, to conceive of a Personal God we must say, He is all-merciful, all-good. But this world is a mixed thing, some good and some bad. We cut off what we like, and generalise that into a Personal God! Just as you say a Personal God is this and that, so you have also to say that He is not this and not that. And you will always find that the idea of a Personal God has to carry with it a personal devil. That is how we clearly see that the idea of a Personal God is not a true generalisation, we have to go beyond, to the Impersonal. In that the universe exists, with all its joys and miseries, for whatever exists in it has all come from the Impersonal.
What sort of a God can He be to whom we attribute evil and other things? The idea is that both good and evil are different aspects, or manifestations of the same thing. The idea that they were two was a very wrong idea from the first, and it has been the cause of a good deal of the misery in this world of ours — the idea that right and wrong are two separate things, cut and dried, independent of each other, that good and evil are two eternally separable and separate things. I should be very glad to see a man who could show me something which is good all the time, and something which is bad all the time. As if one could stand and gravely define some occurrences in this life of ours as good and good alone, and some which are bad and bad alone. That which is good today may be evil tomorrow. That which is bad today may be good tomorrow. What is good for me may be bad for you. The conclusion is, that like every other thing, there is an evolution in good and evil too. There is something which in its evolution, we call, in one degree, good, and in another, evil. The storm that kills my friend I call evil, but that may have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people by killing the bacilli in the air. They call it good, but I call it evil. So both good and evil belong to the relative world, to phenomena. The Impersonal God we propose is not a relative God; therefore it cannot be said that It is either good or bad, but that It is something beyond, because It is neither good nor evil. Good, however, is a nearer manifestation of It than evil.
What is the effect of accepting such an Impersonal Being, an Impersonal Deity? What shall we gain? Will religion stand as a factor in human life, our consoler, our helper? What becomes of the desire of the human heart to pray for help to some being? That will all remain. The Personal God will remain, but on a better basis. He has been strengthened by the Impersonal. We have seen that without the Impersonal, the Personal cannot remain. If you mean to say there is a Being entirely separate from this universe, who has created this universe just by His will, out of nothing, that cannot be proved. Such a state of things cannot be. But if we understand the idea of the Impersonal, then the idea of the Personal can remain there also. This universe, in its various forms, is but the various readings of the same Impersonal. When we read it with the five senses, we call it the material world. If there be a being with more senses than five, he will read it as something else. If one of us gets the electrical sense, he will see the universe as something else again. There are various forms of that same Oneness, of which all these various ideas of worlds are but various readings, and the Personal God is the highest reading that can be attained to, of that Impersonal, by the human intellect. So that the Personal God is true as much as this chair is true, as much as this world is true, but no more. It is not absolute truth. That is to say, the Personal God is that very Impersonal God and, therefore, it is true, just as I, as a human being, am true and not true at the same time. It is not true that I am what you see I am; you can satisfy yourself on that point. I am not the being that you take me to be. You can satisfy your reason as to that, because light, and various vibrations, or conditions of the atmosphere, and all sorts of motions inside me have contributed to my being looked upon as what I am, by you. If any one of these conditions change, I am different again. You may satisfy yourself by taking a photograph of the same man under different conditions of light. So I am what I appear in relation to your senses, and yet, in spite of all these facts, there is an unchangeable something of which all these are different states of existence, the impersonal me, of which thousands of me’s are different persons. I was a child, I was young, I am getting older. Every day of my life, my body and thoughts are changing, but in spite of all these changes, the sum-total of them constitutes a mass which is a constant quantity. That is the impersonal me, of which all these manifestations form, as it were, parts.
Similarly, the sum-total of this universe is immovable, we know, but everything pertaining to this universe consists of motion, everything is in a constant state of flux, everything changing and moving. At the same time, we see that the universe as a whole is immovable, because motion is a relative term. I move with regard to the chair, which does not move. There must be at least two to make motion. If this whole universe is taken as a unit there is no motion; with regard to what should it move? Thus the Absolute is unchangeable and immovable, and all the movements and changes are only in the phenomenal world, the limited. That whole is Impersonal, and within this Impersonal are all these various persons beginning with the lowest atom, up to God, the Personal God, the Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, to whom we pray, before whom we kneel, and so on. Such a Personal God can be established with a great deal of reason. Such a Personal God is explicable as the highest manifestation of the Impersonal. You and I are very low manifestations, and the Personal God is the highest of which we can conceive. Nor can you or I become that Personal God. When the Vedanta says you and I are God, it does not mean the Personal God. To take an example. Out of a mass of clay a huge elephant of clay is manufactured, and out of the same clay, a little clay mouse is made. Would the clay mouse ever be able to become the clay elephant? But put them both in water and they are both clay; as clay they are both one, but as mouse and elephant there will be an eternal difference between them. The Infinite, the Impersonal, is like the clay in the example. We and the Ruler of the Universe are one, but as manifested beings, men, we are His eternal slaves, His worshippers. Thus we see that the Personal God remains. Everything else in this relative world remains, and religion is made to stand on a better foundation. Therefore it is necessary, that we first know the Impersonal in order to know the Personal.
As we have seen, the law of reason says, the particular is only known through the general. So all these particulars, from man to God, are only known through the Impersonal, the highest generalisation. Prayers will remain, only they will get a better meaning. All those senseless ideas of prayer, the low stages of prayer, which are simply giving words to all sorts of silly desire in our minds, perhaps, will have to go. In all sensible religions, they never allow prayers to God; they allow prayers to gods. That is quite natural. The Roman Catholics pray to the saints; that is quite good. But to pray to God is senseless. To ask God to give you a breath of air, to senddown a shower of rain, to make fruits grow in your garden, and so on, is quite unnatural. The saints, however, who were little beings like ourselves, may help us. But to pray to the Ruler of the Universe, prating every little need of ours, and from our childhood saying, “O Lord, I have a headache; let it go,” is ridiculous.There have been millions of souls that have died in this world, and they are all here; they have become gods and angels; let them come to your help. But God! It cannot be. Unto Him we must go for higher things. A fool indeed is he who, resting on the banks of the Gangâ, digs a little well for water; a fool indeed is he who, living near a mine of diamonds, digs for bits of crystal.
And indeed we shall be fools if we go to the Father of all mercy, Father of all love, for trivial earthly things. Unto Him, therefore, we shall go for light, for strength, for love. But so long as there is weakness and a craving for servile dependence in us, there will be these little prayers and ideas of the worship of the Personal God. But those who are highly advanced do not care for such little helps, they have wellnigh forgotten all about this seeking things for themselves, wanting things for themselves. The predominant idea in them is — not I, but thou, my brother. Those are the fit persons to worship the Impersonal God. And what is the worship of the Impersonal God? No slavery there — “O Lord, I am nothing, have mercy on me.”
You know the old Persian poem, translated into English: “I came to see my beloved. The doors were closed. I knocked and a voice came from inside. ‘Who art thou?’ ‘I am so-and-so’ The door was not opened. A second time I came and knocked; I was asked the same question, and gave the same answer. The door opened not. I came a third time, and the same question came. I answered, ‘I am thee, my love,’ and the door opened.” Worship of the Impersonal God is through truth. And what is truth? That I am He. When I say that I am not Thou, it is untrue. When I say I am separate from you it is a lie, a terrible lie. I am one with this universe, born one. It is self evident to my senses that I am one with the universe. I am one with the air that surrounds me, one with heat, one with light, eternally one with the whole Universal Being, who is called this universe, who is mistaken for the universe, for it is He and nothing else, the eternal subject in the heart who says, “I am,” in every heart — the deathless one, the sleepless one, ever awake, the immortal, whose glory never dies, whose powers never fail. I am one with That.

This is all the worship of the Impersonal, and what is the result? The whole life of man will be changed. Strength, strength it is that we want so much in this life, for what we call sin and sorrow have all one cause, and that is our weakness. With weakness comes ignorance, and with ignorance comes misery. It will make us strong. Then miseries will be laughed at, then the violence of the vile will be smiled at, and the ferocious tiger will reveal, behind its tiger’s nature, my own Self. That will be the result. That soul is strong that has become one with the Lord; none else is strong. In your own Bible, what do you think was the cause of that strength of Jesus of Nazareth, that immense, infinite strength which laughed at traitors, and blessed those that were willing to murder him? It was that, “I and my Father are one”; it was that prayer, “Father, just as I am one with you, so make them all one with me.” That is the worship of the Impersonal God. Be one with the universe, be one with Him. And this Impersonal God requires no demonstrations, no proofs. He is nearer to us than even our senses, nearer to us than our own thoughts; it is in and through Him that we see and think. To see anything, I must first see Him. To see this wall I first see Him, and then the wall, for He is the eternal subject. Who is seeing whom? He is here in the heart of our hearts. Bodies and minds change; misery, happiness, good and evil come and go; days and years roll on; life comes and goes; but He dies not. The same voice, “I am, I am,” is eternal, unchangeable. In Him and through Him we know everything. In Him and through Him we see everything. In Him and through Him we sense, we think, we live, and we are. And that “I,” which we mistake to be a little “I,” limited, is not only my “I,” but yours, the “I” of everyone, of the animals, of the angels, of the lowest of the low. That “I am” is the same in the murderer as in the saint, the same in the rich as in the poor, the same in man as in woman, the same in man as in animals. From the lowest amoeba to the highest angel, He resides in every soul, and eternally declares, “I am He, I am He.” When we have understood that voice eternally present there, when we have learnt this lesson, the whole universe will have expressed its secret. Nature will have given up her secret to us. Nothing more remains to be known. Thus we find the truth for which all religions search, that all this knowledge of material sciences is but secondary. That is the only true knowledge which makes us one with this Universal God of the Universe.

Continue Reading

Spiritual healing works! (But so does a tape recorded message)

I was reading about the phenomenal power of the placebo effect, yesterday. This article that I read, subsequently, was super-interesting. Clearly Edzard Ernst is now very high in my reading list. Got to get hold of his articles and books.

One of the first was of spiritual healing. Ernst describes it as “the most interesting study I have ever been involved in”. His idea was to compare healers with actors, and to compare a healer placed behind a door, out of sight of the patient, with the effect when there was no one behind the door (a tape recording of someone breathing and shifting in their chair created the illusion that the healer was present).

All the patients in the double-blind, randomised trial reported feelings of warmth and tingling, suggesting they were experiencing the effects of healing, even when it was delivered by an actor – or a tape recorder. More remarkably, among the patients, there were five in wheelchairs, four of whom found the effect so powerful that they were able to get up and walk.

Ernst recalls going home and telling his wife how he was going to be mocked by his scientific colleagues as the man who worked miracle cures. Instead, it emerged that the four patients who had got up and walked were equally distributed between the four arms of the trial. In other words, the results were an early lesson in the power of placebo.

But it was also a lesson in something else – the resistance of alternative therapists to evidence that does not suit them. “The healers had pestered us to do this trial. But when they got the results, only one was so disappointed that he gave up healing. The others reached the standard conclusion – if my healing art is not shown to work then it must be the fault of the trial.”

So it is clear that spiritual healing works.

But even I can heal “spiritually”. If you believe in me.

So why don’t we make it all very simple and just believe in ourselves?

By the way, this demonstrates also why the concept of God (and religion) is universal in all human societies. When people believe, even miracles can happen. Religion is a placebo. Not to be snivelled at, though. Sometimes placebos are needed when all other methods have failed.

Addendum

Does this give the Vendantic belief an advantage – Tat Tvam Asi? Such a belief could increase one’s probability of “curing” oneself.

The Amazing Power of the Placebo Effect by By JAMIE HALE

The Other Side of The Placebo Effect By JAMIE HALE

ADDENDUM

My comment: There is no “placebo” effect. It is merely the body’s own biochemistry at work. It is merely human ignorance about the body’s normal biochemistry at the cellular level that makes it appear that something “unknown” has occurred in cases where the body recovers without any known “medical” ingredient.

We forget that the body is its own medicine. Humans did not evolve after hundreds of years of evolution without self-healing mechanisms.

The body can automatically fix from 35 per cent to 100 per cent of various diseases.

 

 

Continue Reading

Preliminary taxonomy of God (i.e. types or categories of God)

While I've rejected all religions, I've not rejected the concept of God. That is something worthy of exploration and further analysis.

In order to do justice to the Vichar Sagar book, I thought I should review the literature and list the kinds of hypotheses that have been proposed over the past 3,000 years. Not having sufficient time nor expertise, I've prepared a very preliminary taxonomy of God hypotheses. Happy to receive your comments on this taxonomy. [Note that this taxonomy is focused on hypotheses about God, not on hypotheses about the (human) soul. For that a separate study will be needed.]

I will update this post as I read/understand more. Once it is complete enough, I'll publish the result in a separate post. I believe that different hypotheses should lead to different theories about how the world works. If so, suitable experiments could be designed to tell us which of these hypotheses is true (if at all). 

Note that it is considered improper in some religions for man to investigate the idea of God. For instance, "The Buddha told his disciples that speculation about the nature of nirvana — the liberated afterlife of the soul — was 'improper': what mattered was trying to achieve it. In Islam, debating the nature of Allah is condemned as zannah — a waste of time, equivalent in offences to worshipping false gods"  (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.358).

This blog post won't study the properties of God in detail but there are many "lists" readily available. An example here or here.

Hypothesis 1: God is an intelligence that exists outside us (dualism, or dvaita)

According to this hypothesis, while we may have been created by God, we are not part of God. He/She/It exists outside us, somewhere. Basically God comprises of a "mind". Matter is entirely separate (and created by His mind). This is the dualism hypothesis. It has three sub-types:

Hypothesis 1A: An indifferent, impersonal God (deism)

This type of God kick-starts the world and then lets it work on autopilot. This type of God doesn't keep a watch over us, nor get involved in our lives. This God is referred to as an "It", being abstract. 

Examples:

  • In some Hindu perspectives, Brahma is considered to be an indifferent, impersonal God.
  • Christian Deists believe in an indifferent, impersonal God. 
  • Descartes's God hypothesis.
  • Newton's "Intelligent Mechanick" (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.369)
  • Denis Diderot's Deus otiosis or "Deaf God" (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.383)

"All this world is pervaded by Me in form unmanifest; all things abide in Me, but I stand apart from them. And yet beings are not rooted in Me. Behold the scheme of My sovereignty! Myself the origin and the support of beings, yet standing apart from them. Using nature which is Mine own, I create again and again all this multitude of beings, keeping them dependent on nature. In the scheme of My sovereignty, nature brings forth the moving and the unmoving, and in consequence of this the world evolves." [Gita, IX 4 to 10, Source

But if God is an "Intelligent Mechanick" then why does the problem of evil exist? Which is:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?  [Source]

As David Hume pointed out in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, "If the order and wonder of nature did point to the presence of an Intelligent Mechanick, as Netwon claimed, how do we account for disorder, calamity, disease, and suffering?" (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.382-83)

Note that the indifferent, impersonal God does NOT provide humanity with a guide to behaviour (ethics). Indeed, there is a possibility for such a view of God to lead to total moral relativism, i.e. non-discrimination between good and evil.

Hypothesis  1B: Two types of God

This is another meaning of dualism, namely, that "creation is divided into two – good and evil. Accordingly [there are] two sources of creation for the universe. .. good things were made by Yazdan and the evil things by Ahriman." (Dar Rah-e Haq, The Roots of Religion, Educational Institute and Publishers, Qum, Iran, 1982, p.53". This kind of thought underpins, perhaps, the concept of Devil (although there are different types of Devil).

The third view regards God as an active agent. This is known as the theist view. The kind of God, in this view, has many "human" traits. He (usually not a She or It) is concerned about our behaviour and about what 

Hypothesis  1C: A personal God (theism, including mono- and poly-theism)

The other view regards God as an active agent. This is known as the theist view. The kind of God, in this view, has many "human" traits. He (usually not a She or It) is concerned about our behaviour and about what we do. He listens to and responds to our prayers. He plays favourites. He seems to be susceptible either to intense devotion or to bribes (e.g. He can be bribed by "sacrificing" a few rupees at the local temple or church). Soldiers from both sides of a war pray to such a personal God for their own victory in war. [Note: this line of thinking could be developed into an experiment].

There are thousands of types of personal God, each with a different name and characteristics.
 
It may be noted that while the personal God is often thought to be the creator of the world, His powers (as demonstrated to mankind) seem to be weak. His message to mankind is feeble. His "words" are re-assembled by man, years after He allegedly spoke them. He can find himself hanging up on a cross. He can be forced to take recourse to cheap magic tricks. He seems to lose battles against the 'devil' or 'rakshasas', or manages to win through subterfuge and trickery. [This data can help assess the validity of this hypothesis.]
Examples (not all of them with the same powers):
  • The Hindu Gods, Rama and Krishna (Vishnu's avatars) and the mystic worship of such personal Gods (bhakti, e.g. Meerabai)
  • The typical Christian God (namely, an old bearded fellow who sits in heaven but takes interest in our individual lives – but there is some confusion re: the nature of Christ)
  • The Allah of the Muslims (this God is an interventionist God, not indifferent. He is a "just" God, for instance; and has a "good purpose") 
  • Christian mystics like Nicholas of Cusa and Jacob Boehme
  • The mystics of Islam (e.g. Kabir)

Elaboration

Hinduism is predominantly Vaishnavite. "The 1996 Britannica Book of the Year asserts that Vashnavas make up 70% of the Hindu constituency (25% are Shaivites, worshippers of Shiva; 2% are neo-Hindus or reform Hindus). … Vaishnavism, in sharp contract to the 'Hinduism' of Vivekananda, is not only monotheistic but highly personalistic in its view of God." (Steven J. Rosen, The Hidden Glory of India, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2002, p.6,7).

"God takes dust and from it creates man in His own image. Although He gives him and his mate Paradise to live in, they disappoint Him and God throws them out, forcing them and their descendents to wander. Generations later, God sends a massive flood to wipe out the sins of humankind, but He saves one honest man, Noah, and his immediate family. …" (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.168). The point being that God is involved at every step in man's existence, basically controlling him.

"In the Qur'an, Allah is given ninety-nine names, all of which emphasize His superiority to the created world: they include, for example, al-Ghani, rich and infinite; al-Muhyi, giver of life; al-Alim, knower of all things… He is both giver and taker-away." (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.253)

"The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in very cubic nanometer of the universe, from the interactions of quarks inside atomic nuclei to the evolution of stars in the most distant galaxies. What is more, God listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation, a minute bit of organized matter called humanity" (Victor Stenger).

Note that the theism of Hinduism differs significantly from the theism of Christianity, Jewish, or Islamic theism, in that while Hindu theism is happy to accommodate Christ (or Allah) as a form of God, he is unwilling to be forced to be restricted to only that interpretation of God. Thus, "the basic religious approach of the Hindu will not allow him to give Christ the pre-eminent status he has in the Christian faith. Christ may be one way. He cannot be the Way." (Arnold D.Hunt, Christ and the World's Religions, Christian Life Curriculum, 1970, p.14)  

The idea that there is only one personal God is called mono-theism, but polytheism, which includes secondary gods or agents (such as saints and angels) is commonly hypothesised.

Examples:
  • Hinduism has many secondary gods. Most Hindu gods (even in the animal form) are "human" and personable. While "God" is not easy to visualise, we are able to relate easily to the exploits of these gods.
  • Christianity has numerous saints with the power of "miracles".
  • Islam's numerous mystical saints have similar miraculous powers (even though Mohammed denied the possibility of man possessing such powers).
  • Islam itself began by breaking the images of the "old" gods (just like Christians in Rome physically destroyed the polytheistic imagery of the pagans).

Hypothesis 2: God permeates everything (non-dualism, or advaita)

According to this hypothesis, God is a spiritual entity found inside everything, including inside us. This is the non-dualist hypothesis. There are two types of non-dualism:

Hypothesis 2A: God is a substance that can be equated broadly with "Nature" (with a capital N) (pantheism)

This view sees God as a substance that includes energy and matter. God and everything is thought to be made of the same "substance".

Example:

  • Spinoza's pantheism. Gordon Bruno held a broadly similar view.
  • Newton's "Intelligent Mechanick" has properties similar to those of pantheists. For instance, according to Newton "God was not the creator of space and time, but was them. Matter, on the other hand, was created by God." (Robert Winston, The Story of God, London: Bantam Books, 2005, p.369)

Hypothesis 2B: God is a universal consciousness that pervades everything (Vedantic non-dualism)

According to this view, God is a consciousness that exists in everything (including rocks) at a subtle level – a level that presumably transcends energy and matter. Our "soul" is then thought to be related to this broader consciousness (Tat tvam asi). This hypothesis leads to two sub-categories, depending on whether this overall consciousness (God) behaves in an abstract manner or is bothered about us as 'individuals'.

Hypothesis 2BA: An impersonal non-dualistic God

Example:

Some of the Upanishads suggest that Brahma is impersonal. Shankara is the major proponent of this view. According to him, Brahman is real, everything else is an illusion, or maya. 

Hypothesis 2BB: A personal non-dualistic God

This hypothesis is difficult to understand (given that we are supposed to be part of the same consciousness). However, the idea is somehow put forward, that despite non-dualism, there is a personal God. This was the view of Ramanuja
 
 
Continue Reading