On religion

I was a believer, then an agnostic, and now I am an atheist. Atheism makes more sense to me, in particular when I see that the roots of many current political conflicts lie in religious differences, or in the way religious differences have been manipulated and hyped. Eclesiastical religion rarely offers women any space in its formal hierarchy, another reason why I will always feel an outsider to any religion. Religion, when it does offer women any space, only does so in symbolic roles, in 'non-threatening' roles like that of a mother or the 'virgin' mary. Religion abhors female sexuality.

I will not totally agree with Dawkin's strict atheism. I have a father who is religious, but not orthodox, and having heard the 'Gita' from him, I know that the Gita contains useful philosophical insights, and I have found them to be practical. I know religion has helped many people, such as my father, in coming to terms with the vagaries of life at a philosophical level. At the material level, though, religion is not the solution to address injustices. It only helps the powerful to delude the meek into believing that "the meek will inherit the earth".

The poet William Blake was perhaps one of the few who successfully used religion, or the figure of Christ, to try to address the material inequalities of life. Check out his poetry and his artwork.

That aside, religion has been the site for the contest of power, money, and politics. It has spewed many evils, the caste system in India being one among them. And increasingly, in today's globalised world, religion has become the site for contesting identity politics. Certain strands of Christianity seek to deny women the basic reproductive right of abortion (I do not know about the stand on abortion in other religions), and if the ongoing pro-life, pro-choice debates in America are any evidence, religion continues to make women's bodies the site for enforcing religious and cultural labels.

Sociological theories (Auguste Comte's being the first) have argued that societies progress in 'evolutionary' stages. Belief in the theological, in the powers of ghosts, spirits, and natural phenomenon like thunder, lightning, marks the first 'metaphysical' stage, according to Comte. The belief in a God or 'gods', a higher power, comes next, and this phase is characterised by a formal religious structure with priests and other godmen working as intermediaries. This is the religious stage, which is then followed by the final stage of a lack of belief in a higher power, i.e. the 'positivist' or the scientific stage. This last stage highlights rationalism and man as a rational animal. This is only a sociological theory, and other theories talk of different means of 'evolution'.

I know that a discussion on religion tends to be heated because people can get defensive and aggressive with their respective takes on religion. The easiest way to dismiss a debate on religion is to say that it is a matter of personal choice, that it belongs to the realm of the personal. Yet, religion has entered the political space like never before. The emergence of Hindutva politics in India, and the debate surrounding abortion in the US are two glaring examples of this.

Why am I writing about religion? The debate on religion is something I have always thought about. Over the years, I have seen myself drift from being a believer (due to my parent's influence), to questioning the existence of God (agnosticism), and to finally cheerfully resigning myself to the belief that 'There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.' (from the Atheist bus campaign. Read more about it here). Also, a friend's recent blogpost on religious zealots (saintelmosfire.wordpress.com), and another friend's response to Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' (noopalvia.blogspot.com) spurred me to put pen to paper and jot down my thoughts.

I was fascinated by Nieztche's "God is dead", as I was with Marx's take on religion as the "opiate of the masses". I can relate the latter to the ritualistic aspect of organised religion, which at some level discourages critical questioning, instead focuses on giving oneself up to a higher power. I know some people find rituals comforting and reassuring. I think this is because rituals signify some kind of continuity, a thread linking the past to the present. It is probably also a feeling of having 'let go' that seems to define the comfort derived from rituals. Also, it is indeed reassuring think that there is a higher power, a father like figure somewhere up there who is looking after us. Yet, once again it irks me that the first image that comes to one's mind when one hears the word 'God' is that of inevitably a male figure, an old patriarch like figure.

I believe in tolerance. If it helps someone to believe that there is someone up there to take care of them, so be it. What bothers me is the way religion has become the site for power politics, and the fight over 'my god is better than yours'.