To Believe or not to Believe

This is a continuation of a dialogue which got too hot on the article “Bubble of a Believer”. I had invited Regards Sahib specifically to a discussion but while he went ahead and took the mantle of coming up with deep, thought provoking arguments, I had involved myself answering a lot of other interlocutors and in the process provided a cursory answer to his post. Here I have first posted his statement followed by my reply.

187 Posted by Regards on September 2, 2009 10:49:45 am
#153 Tehsin
“I think divine retribution, innocent human suffering and justice seem to be issues that have pushed you into atheism... Look around on chowk even; those who kick get kicked and those who are nice are returned with kindness – so there is a subtle order not of the quid pro quo variety but a pattern.”
I’m sorry for lack of clarity. Trying to do the best I can. However Hamidm reflected many of the aspects much better than I do.

There is a contradiction in what you said. If the nice are returned with kindness then where is injustice? In fact it is contrary. More often than not, innocents and victims of injustice are nice and also great god believers. Divine retribution also has never been much of my concern (I’ll be really concerned if I’m seen as selfish and vengeful by those who are around me and they return me in kind some day).

My atheism is not revenge or a war on god. It is just that since last 40 years, I’ve been unable to find any useful function for god or reason of his being there. But if you can find me some one who can make me live beyond death or take responsibilities before going to bed of all things foolish I do in a day, I'll be really obliged. However I've learned to think so no fancy stories...

However I admit my vociferous claim to atheism is a DELIBERATE act of challenge. It is not to god who is not there but allah- wallahs, the pseudo- intellectual impostors.

It is outright criminal

1. to let many simple abduls be fooled and disarmed in the name of the god. Injustice and victimization by bullies in society is justified to the believers in terms of punishment for past deeds in previous lives (hinduism) or as promise of reward in future (Islam, Christianity).

2. to let people be irresponsible towards others and also themselves, as they are told that when older, they can always turn to god as his justice is only after death. If human justice was not there, has the fear of divine justice ever stopped a young criminal when he knows that he can always become a saint later?

Let us get back to my primary reason of my atheism. I don’t see any minimal presence of god in anything. Higher reality etc..? There are many higher realities, not one. Why not have a trillion gods. They will slowly become as profane as any --- kritters. Beyond esoteric claims, complex language and great verbiage, even incomprehensible to themselves; a serious analysis of divine no longer withstands the scientific query.

As you asked for a discussion, let us move to that. But please no esoteric language, only simple logic. Any hypothesis of divine should not go against what is well established today. A speculation is admissible as long as it does not go against what is known.

Theory of evolution has well established that we’re cousins of not only animals but also of bacterias, vegetation. If our ancestors, including quran, did not see genetic evolution in work, it is because human life is too short. But now there are enough evidences since last 300 years, from not only fossils but also by observed changes in DNA’s of animals and ours own. Upto us homo-sapiens sapiens, there is a continuous chain of small variations. No sharp divide between humans and all other life. Thus whatever is applicable to us should be applicable to animals and vegetation. If we have complex nervous system and think beyond what many other animals can, it still does not put us in any special category.

If we have a soul, so must have all animals and vegetations – trees, grass, bacteria and even virus. Has the god written any vedas, quran , bible for them and told them how to go to heaven? When a doctor takes sperm and egg in a test tube and makes a baby or does not do so, is the god at his service to put life in it? When a part of the body, including brain is put in another body, is the soul shared? If it is or it is not in both cases, where does the burden of sins go? Whom the god will punish or reward?

Let us assume soul resides somewhere in the mind. We know enzymes are the real driving factor of all actions including manufacturing of all organs including brain. But many of such mind altering drugs come from proteins – enzymes of herbs etc. Imagine during lunch today, you had raw mushrooms which modified your generally pleasant demeanour and you abused and killed your brother. Whom the God is going to punish? Mushroom or you?

In next 50 Years, we’re likely to have computers capable of more complex thinking, including simulation of emotional behaviour than humans can in many areas. Would you still say that you have a soul and computers do not?

At least one thing is clear that this soul concept takes us to a multitude of absurd situations. Only a mullah or pundit committee can decide, what is right. See your seemingly inoffensive theological speculation by Plato gets transformed in a potent weapon in the hands of this taliban committee.

Nature always looks for simple options. Anything circuitous route is surely not the right (or first one) to go from point A to B, if a direct route does exist. If you forget soul, and give the same functions to mind then what do you lose? It is the case in all animals or primitive systems like plants who are aware of light, respond to stress- heat, noise etc.;, emit chemicals to protect themselves or to inform other plants.

I think simple folks will be winners as in the sinking wake of soul, religion and gods will disappear too. Fasadi mullahs will be losers certainly. Though heaven will be empty and they can have a few million virgins of their own imagination.

REPLY BY Tehsin A


“- My atheism is not revenge or a war on god. It is just that since last 40 years, I’ve been unable to find any useful function for god or reason of his being there.”

I spent most of my life in exactly the same predicament.


“- However I admit my vociferous claim to atheism is a DELIBERATE act of challenge

It is outright criminal

1. to let many simple abduls be fooled and disarmed in the name of the god. Injustice and victimization by bullies in society is justified to the believers in terms of punishment for past deeds in previous lives (hinduism) or as promise of reward in future (Islam, Christianity).

2. to let people be irresponsible towards others and also themselves, as they are told that when older, they can always turn to god as his justice is only after death. If human justice was not there, has the fear of divine justice ever stopped a young criminal when he knows that he can always become a saint later?”

This is almost like holding science responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Science can be used for constructive purposes or destructive purposes depending upon the user. Same is true with religion and philosophy. These are all extremely powerful tools which have the ability to do tremendous good but also incredible harm in the wrong hands. Like I have said in the past, organized religion has done such tremendous harm and has become a force of evil rather then good and we have no choice but for it to be completely removed from society.

“-I don’t see any minimal presence of god in anything. Higher reality etc..? There are many higher realities, not one. Why not have a trillion gods. They will slowly become as profane as any --- kritters”

I don’t think we can get anywhere on this one unless we have some sort of a definition as to who we are. Forget God for a second, do you find any plausibility in the light bulb theory i.e. you are nothing but a light bulb. But what makes you uniquely you, as a light bulb? Yes you have certain characteristics of a light bulb but explaining the totality of your being in this terminology is simplistic if not down right ignorant.

- “If we have a soul, so must have all animals and vegetations – trees, grass, bacteria and even virus. Has the god written any vedas, quran , bible for them and told them how to go to heaven?”


Now this is my understanding that I cannot back with either Plato or any other religious scripture, but I think that everything which has life in it (efficient cause of motion) has to have a soul. This soul is indestructible. Each one whether a virus, a single celled organism to the most complex of structures is on a cycle of improvement. It wants to do the best it can for itself given its circumstance. But free will allows it to choose the course that it may think is the best for it. In other words it can delude itself by making the wrong choice by listening to its needs and desires rather then just counting on knowledge to guide it. A soul by following a better course may rise from an amoeba to a rabbit or an oak tree and be reborn as a human being, whereas a human could regress into a virus. It depends upon the dissonance in the soul (to use my terminology). The interesting thing for me though is how this consciousness can unknowingly be part of a higher consciousness. Like a human being has living cells and all kinds of organisms living within them who have their consciousness but are also part of the collective which would be the human consciousness. Could it also be that we are part of a greater consciousness and be completely unaware of it, it seems to be certainly possible.

As far as scripture goes they are only an attempt at explaining deeply felt realities that men have felt ever since they had time beyond worrying about their bodily needs. They are definitely not written by God but the best that can be said about them is that they may be inspired by deep feelings about God. Every specie tries to pass its knowledge to the next generation, this occurs through genetic material, child rearing instructions, oral communication, written work and finally video. It depends on the specie’s relative development whether it has a communicable ability or not. As you move up the ‘great chain of being’ you get greater skills, access to knowledge etc. the closer you get to your goal of being with perfection, because achieving perfection is the goal.

I am sure that you know a lot of people just like my aunt who was never a particularly religious person at all once casually remarked that her connection to God she felt was more important to her then breathing. I pause when I see so many people, so committed – can I just go ahead and dismiss them as delusional? Mind you these people are no saints, they are as materialistic and probably would not give a dime beyond what they absolutely have to and then when it comes to this part their apparent generosity is entirely uncharacteristic of their bargain seeking self. Maybe they are getting a bargain, I wonder.


“- When a doctor takes sperm and egg in a test tube and makes a baby or does not do so, is the god at his service to put life in it? When a part of the body, including brain is put in another body, is the soul shared? If it is or it is not in both cases, where does the burden of sins go? Whom the god will punish or reward?”


Efficient use or manipulation of materials which is no different then let’s say coming up with hybrid fruit trees cannot be considered manipulations of life. How would it be any different of a badshah with a harem who can beget a hundred kids in a year where as mere mortals like you and I would realistically get may be a couple during our life times? The only time things would change would be if we ever achieve transmigration of soul. We have been able to clone the body but we are pretty far off when it comes to moving the soul. So, is the soul divisible? I don’t think it is at all whether you take the brain out, or replace an arm or lets say have a heart transplanted from somebody else. Yes it would be impacted by its new circumstance given that the body is different and its capabilities have changed but it is a change of environment not of form. Soul is still on its journey this is just another thing that it has to deal with.


“- Let us assume soul resides somewhere in the mind. We know enzymes are the real driving factor of all actions including manufacturing of all organs including brain. But many of such mind altering drugs come from proteins – enzymes of herbs etc. Imagine during lunch today, you had raw mushrooms which modified your generally pleasant demeanour and you abused and killed your brother. Whom the God is going to punish? Mushroom or you?”

How is this any different from lets say being abused as a child, or lets say being put in a medieval jail for life for stealing bread? All these are extenuating circumstances which have to be taken into account for proper administration of justice.


“- In next 50 Years, we’re likely to have computers capable of more complex thinking, including simulation of emotional behaviour than humans can in many areas. Would you still say that you have a soul and computers do not?”

First of all humans are so much better off to have computers be in their service rather then be like them. Secondly, we could probably have computers simulating human behavior but only to the extent that they are programmed for. But this programming is limited by our own knowledge of the full extent of what a human being is and then translating that knowledge into programming knowledge from a creator’s perspective. Thirdly, unless and until we also give them the ability to reproduce themselves and spawn babies the picture will be entirely incomplete. So, I don’t think we are even scratching the surface of this subject.


“- Nature always looks for simple options. Anything circuitous route is surely not the right (or first one) to go from point A to B, if a direct route does exist. If you forget soul, and give the same functions to mind then what do you lose? It is the case in all animals or primitive systems like plants who are aware of light, respond to stress- heat, noise etc.;, emit chemicals to protect themselves or to inform other plants.”

I agree with Occam’s razor but the explanation has to be complete. What you are saying would imply that heredity should explain everything. If heredity was the cause of who we are then it would be a straight line. Parents, genealogy would determine whether we were soldierly or had the smarts or artistic or whatever. If we could predict the likes and dislikes of our children, of their goals as they would or should be then we would have been well on our way to create a master race, but any attempts at that have miserably failed. Father cant understand why his son wants to be a dancer when all his brothers and uncles and everybody else is a soldier. The likelihood of our being best friends with our brother are remote. Most of the time brothers have entirely different personalities and except for looks (heredity) or certain habits (nurture) their friends would not be able to recognize even remotely the traits of siblings. We happen to be three brothers and our personalities are entirely distinct, we would never be friends because other then home or home affairs there is nothing else that is common between us. Children of kings despite the best education and upbringing available to them turn into miserable failures whereas unwanted bastards of drunkards become leaders. This means that this part of us is distinct from our gene pool. This portion of us comes from our soul that is my contention.

The path to progress is not uniform or a straight line, there are plenty of false starts, errors, dead ends, retractions etc. but the key is to remain steadfast and so long as the world is not taken over by a super computer who decides once and for all that we don’t need to search or continue our work, our progress etc. we are okay and we will get to the truth eventually and isn’t that the purpose of all our quest?