03-20-2006, 08:40 PM
Book reveiw, Pioeer, 20 March, 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does God exist? Yes and no!
MV Kamath
QUEST BEYOND RELIGION, BY IM SINGH, KONARK, RS 500
There are many who believe in the existence of god or a creator. They are called theists (after the Greek word theos, 'god'). Them there are atheists who are non-believers. And finally there are agencies which are not sure whether there is a God or not and probably couldn't care less. And the debate whether there is a God has been going on since times immemorial.
In India there have been, there are, and, no doubt, there will continue to be, nastiks who do not accept the existence of God and have no use for Him. Dr IM Singh, an eminent physician belongs to this august fraternity. There is, of course, a difference between belief in God and faith in a religion. One can have faith in a Supreme Being, call it by whatever name and still be irreligious. Down the centuries religions have been exploitative. Dr Singh reminds us how, over the centuries, man has exploited the concept of religion with sporadic ruthlessness for political, social and economic ends.
Understandably Dr Singh is opposed to religion. As he sees it, religious belief is passed on to individuals and communities which then become cultural ideas extending generation after generation. Religion, thus, tends to get accepted without challenge. In many interesting ways, he argues, the preoccupation with one's God is so deeply etched on one's mind that despite social and spiritual ills, one is unable to take an interest in the scientific alternatives to religion. As he further argues: "It is because one's soul is mortgaged to God with docility and eagerness that a change or a revolution on thinking is hard to grasp". But what has religion got to do with God who, surely, is above religion?
The question of God's existence has nothing to do with precepts, whether of Islam or Christianity, or myths which are part of Hinduism. Hinduism is easily one of the most misunderstood of all religions. According to Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan whom Dr Singh quotes, "It (Hinduism) enjoins a strict code of practice. The theist and atheist, the sceptic and the agnostic may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu System of Culture and life... what counts is conduct, not belief." Dr Singh, born a Hindu, says his disenchantment with God started when his childhood prayers remained unanswered - a very poor excuse.
He then proceeds to demolish all the myths about God, whether propagated in Hinduism, Islam or Christianity, in the name of rationalism. Would God cease to exist if one cannot accept the belief that Christ is the only son of God or that the virgin Mary gave birth to him? Would again God be an anachronism if one does not accept certain tenets such as Karma, rebirth and leela? Do we have to give God a gender?
The usual argument made by atheists is that God is the creation of man and not the other way around. Would God cease to exist if there is no visible creation? Would there be no God if there were no man or, more specifically, no intelligence to conceive him? Dr Singh makes the surprising point that "in general, the more uneducated a person the greater is the belief in God". If we pursue that argument, then the greatest disbeliever in God should be the most educated. This is reducing his argument to absurdity.
Dr Singh quotes profusely from recent achievements in science to make the point that what is usually attributed to God is science's contribution. He points out that the discovery of the human genome and its implications, that it would help us control our genetic makeup, has immense significance not only for the future of mankind but also for the animal and vegetable kingdoms and hence man would be able to chose his own destiny.
So where does God come in the picture? According to Dr Singh it is not God or some unknown power that shapes man's destiny but the "unleashed power of the atoms". He observes, "For the scientists who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by a chemical process involving non-biological components but the number of pathways that might have been followed to produce the living cell."
Actually, a French scientist way back in the 1950s argued that life began when, by sheer coincidence, an organic cell was formed because of the interaction between electricity and the presence of nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen in the atmosphere. A charming explanation. If one understands the scientist alright all creation started with that first beginning of the organic molecule. As a thesis it is fascinating. It was not God who 'created' the universe, but an accident in chemical technology.
In November 2002, the author writes, Dr Craig Ventor, a genomic pioneer and Dr Hamilton Smith, Nobel Prize winning genetist in America created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks. Furthermore, at Ventnor's Institute of Biological Energy the scientists bought "commercially viable strands of INA, and using a new technology, coaxed them to form a duplicate of the genome of a Bacteriophage called phi X.
Even more importantly the synthetic genome of the virus was planted into a cell when the virus started reproducing itself. Ergo, then we are asked to believe, if man can create a live virus would it be too long before man creates an artificial man to his own specification?
As Dr Singh puts it, "The progress in physical sciences has also been gradually eroding the paradigm of God." Obviously, man is now on his way to becoming God himself. "I am quite convinced," writes Dr Singh, "that Science if Fact and God is fiction," considering that "in the not so distant future, scientists will be able to identify the path of chemical evolution that led to the initiation of life on earth".
That ends Dr Singh's quest for the meaning of life - and God. As a study it is fascinating. As one man's long quest for the meaning of existence this book makes a fascinating study. Dr Singh is by no means arrogant even if he is dismissive of God and has no use for prayers. His quest started as a child and has ended in his old age with a clear faith in Science and its possibilities.
The book is aptly titled, Quest Beyond Religion. To Dr Singh "the continuing fascination with God is stressing the lapsed state of the human mind". That sums up his entire thinking. God help him! <b>The writer insists that he will stick to his own thinking no matter if a majority in the world continues to believe in God's existence. And why shouldn't he? The Buddha makes no motion of God. But does that prove that God does not exist? Let us rest the debate here. God, if there is God, will surely understand.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does God exist? Yes and no!
MV Kamath
QUEST BEYOND RELIGION, BY IM SINGH, KONARK, RS 500
There are many who believe in the existence of god or a creator. They are called theists (after the Greek word theos, 'god'). Them there are atheists who are non-believers. And finally there are agencies which are not sure whether there is a God or not and probably couldn't care less. And the debate whether there is a God has been going on since times immemorial.
In India there have been, there are, and, no doubt, there will continue to be, nastiks who do not accept the existence of God and have no use for Him. Dr IM Singh, an eminent physician belongs to this august fraternity. There is, of course, a difference between belief in God and faith in a religion. One can have faith in a Supreme Being, call it by whatever name and still be irreligious. Down the centuries religions have been exploitative. Dr Singh reminds us how, over the centuries, man has exploited the concept of religion with sporadic ruthlessness for political, social and economic ends.
Understandably Dr Singh is opposed to religion. As he sees it, religious belief is passed on to individuals and communities which then become cultural ideas extending generation after generation. Religion, thus, tends to get accepted without challenge. In many interesting ways, he argues, the preoccupation with one's God is so deeply etched on one's mind that despite social and spiritual ills, one is unable to take an interest in the scientific alternatives to religion. As he further argues: "It is because one's soul is mortgaged to God with docility and eagerness that a change or a revolution on thinking is hard to grasp". But what has religion got to do with God who, surely, is above religion?
The question of God's existence has nothing to do with precepts, whether of Islam or Christianity, or myths which are part of Hinduism. Hinduism is easily one of the most misunderstood of all religions. According to Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan whom Dr Singh quotes, "It (Hinduism) enjoins a strict code of practice. The theist and atheist, the sceptic and the agnostic may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu System of Culture and life... what counts is conduct, not belief." Dr Singh, born a Hindu, says his disenchantment with God started when his childhood prayers remained unanswered - a very poor excuse.
He then proceeds to demolish all the myths about God, whether propagated in Hinduism, Islam or Christianity, in the name of rationalism. Would God cease to exist if one cannot accept the belief that Christ is the only son of God or that the virgin Mary gave birth to him? Would again God be an anachronism if one does not accept certain tenets such as Karma, rebirth and leela? Do we have to give God a gender?
The usual argument made by atheists is that God is the creation of man and not the other way around. Would God cease to exist if there is no visible creation? Would there be no God if there were no man or, more specifically, no intelligence to conceive him? Dr Singh makes the surprising point that "in general, the more uneducated a person the greater is the belief in God". If we pursue that argument, then the greatest disbeliever in God should be the most educated. This is reducing his argument to absurdity.
Dr Singh quotes profusely from recent achievements in science to make the point that what is usually attributed to God is science's contribution. He points out that the discovery of the human genome and its implications, that it would help us control our genetic makeup, has immense significance not only for the future of mankind but also for the animal and vegetable kingdoms and hence man would be able to chose his own destiny.
So where does God come in the picture? According to Dr Singh it is not God or some unknown power that shapes man's destiny but the "unleashed power of the atoms". He observes, "For the scientists who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by a chemical process involving non-biological components but the number of pathways that might have been followed to produce the living cell."
Actually, a French scientist way back in the 1950s argued that life began when, by sheer coincidence, an organic cell was formed because of the interaction between electricity and the presence of nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen in the atmosphere. A charming explanation. If one understands the scientist alright all creation started with that first beginning of the organic molecule. As a thesis it is fascinating. It was not God who 'created' the universe, but an accident in chemical technology.
In November 2002, the author writes, Dr Craig Ventor, a genomic pioneer and Dr Hamilton Smith, Nobel Prize winning genetist in America created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks. Furthermore, at Ventnor's Institute of Biological Energy the scientists bought "commercially viable strands of INA, and using a new technology, coaxed them to form a duplicate of the genome of a Bacteriophage called phi X.
Even more importantly the synthetic genome of the virus was planted into a cell when the virus started reproducing itself. Ergo, then we are asked to believe, if man can create a live virus would it be too long before man creates an artificial man to his own specification?
As Dr Singh puts it, "The progress in physical sciences has also been gradually eroding the paradigm of God." Obviously, man is now on his way to becoming God himself. "I am quite convinced," writes Dr Singh, "that Science if Fact and God is fiction," considering that "in the not so distant future, scientists will be able to identify the path of chemical evolution that led to the initiation of life on earth".
That ends Dr Singh's quest for the meaning of life - and God. As a study it is fascinating. As one man's long quest for the meaning of existence this book makes a fascinating study. Dr Singh is by no means arrogant even if he is dismissive of God and has no use for prayers. His quest started as a child and has ended in his old age with a clear faith in Science and its possibilities.
The book is aptly titled, Quest Beyond Religion. To Dr Singh "the continuing fascination with God is stressing the lapsed state of the human mind". That sums up his entire thinking. God help him! <b>The writer insists that he will stick to his own thinking no matter if a majority in the world continues to believe in God's existence. And why shouldn't he? The Buddha makes no motion of God. But does that prove that God does not exist? Let us rest the debate here. God, if there is God, will surely understand.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->