Sunday, June 13, 2010

I am against organized religion. Have been for ages, even before I knew what it was exactly I was against. The whole idea of certain specific rites to be performed and certain ideas to be held sacrosanct over and above us mere mortals even if it was proved time and time again that those views were false made me very uncomfortable. Having been brought up as a Hindu, I was always taught to respect all religions as they were all a way to god or nirvana or whatever. But then I'd read about some of the things believers in various organized religions had done in the name of their faith, and I'd struggle to comprehend it. How was it that beliefs that were supposed to bring you close to mental peace and god could turn man into violent barbarous animals? The Inquisition, the treatment of the Native tribes in the American continents, the persecution of the Jews, the Crusades with the innumerable atrocities committed by both sides, the terrorism in Punjab and now Islamic terror all over the world apparently; the list went on and on and I was always finding something more vile and evil done by someone or some group in the name of his/their faith. It's not as if Hinduism was free of blame, but most of its ills had a more societal than religious sanction, and that is why at least some of its evils were eradicated to a greater or lesser extent.

My purpose in examining this question back then and now was not to vilify any religion or group, that would serve no purpose. What I wanted to work out was why people were committing these heinous acts, such that they otherwise would find abhorrent to the highest degree. I looked at religion as the culprit. I saw how it could whip up sentiment to such a degree that normally mild-mannered persons turned into bloodthirsty savages. More than self, family, nation, class, more than anything else, religion could ask for the highest sacrifice in the name of danger to its existence. I remember it being remarked about how Indians took all sorts of abuse from the British East India Company but balked when their religious principles were being compromised. So what is it about religion?

Religion has a number of things going in its favour. Firstly, it panders to our deepest fear, the fear of death. The final unknown. The one great mystery. We all at some point or the other think of death and wonder what, if anything, lies beyond that last, ragged breath. And voila! Religion provides us with an answer. Heaven, paradise, jannat, swarg, call it what you will. It is the ultimate panacea, a place where all your desires will be met and all you want will come true. It is the culmination of all your dreams and desires. Eternal bliss is what religion offers after the pain of death. But, there is a catch! Depending on which religion you belong to, you have to obey certain rules, guidelines, laws, and commandments to qualify for that heaven. All you need to do is to follow these blindly and everlasting happiness will be yours. Nothing atheism could offer could even get near this! And of course, to avoid shifts to other religion, disbelief in your particular god is the greatest sin. The one unforgivable cardinal sin, which will damn you to the unimaginable tortures of hell forever. Quite a strong hold, I must say! On the one hand you have death with all its associated fears and on the other paradisiacal redemption. Quite an easy choice.

Then there is the hope religion offers even while you're alive, of an omnipotent god who watches over you and keeps you safe from all harm. Not a very well thought out plan if you think about it, but religion has amended this principle over the ages to keep in time with the changing mores of the age. Whenever you feel bereft and all alone and helpless, religion is there to offer you a shoulder. It comes with a price but at that moment, you grab at whatever you find. Quite a few born-again religious converts talk about this magical succour they got from religion when they were at their lowest ebb. Of course, if they thought about it, anything that remotely offered a prop to them at that time would have been grasped at with both hands. But through all your perils and pitfalls, your unconscious errors and conscious sins, there's a great hope in the idea that someone's got your back, and someone as powerful as god at that!

The more I thought of it, the clearer it became. Every religion started out as a means of making man happier in his surroundings, at peace with himself and his circumstances and actions. Then later, it started making man feel guilty for all the same things. Every pleasure became a sin, a crime man had to atone for, and since he was continuously doing the same things, he had to atone again and again. So keeping man guilty and promising him freedom from recompense for the actions that made him guilty became another reason for religion's hold on us.

Then there is the permanency religion offers man. In a world where everything changes, now at an ever increasing pace, we often find ourselves adrift, rootless, floating from one rock to another, trying to find something solid enough to lay roots in. There has to be something fixed and stable for man to stand on and look at the world from. This is another void religion fills quite efficiently. It provides its own version of the 'eternal truth' and asks us to take those words as the 'word of god', immutable and unchanging. Desolate and rootless, we hang on to this word, another last straw that religion gives a drowning man. But, the problem arises when the world changes and the rules laid down by the god of a particular religion don't make sense anymore. That would seem a dilemma, but religion rolls over it like a juggernaut. To admit a mistake or to make a change in any religious doctrine would mean an automatic acceptance of the mutability and hence impermanence of god's laws. So religion refuses to see the light and holds out against any and all scientific and most if not all social challenge. And there lies the root of religious fundamentalism. It has to define itself within hard rigid lines and thereby demarcate the insiders and outsiders clearly. The stronger the delineation, the greater is the divide, and the more the antagonism. So, the Abrahamic religions, with their strong sense of self and non-self make for more fundamentalist positions. Religion gives man a sense of exclusiveness and a feeling of being better than a fellow human being, and that contempt only leads to animosity and hostility. With a religion teaching that, can war, destruction and terror be far behind?

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Haven't been reading much except for the one book I wish I hadn't started. I had no idea how facile his arguments could be or I'd never have bought the book. "The Science of God" is based on denying any scientific fact the author can safely refuse to accept and where he cannot do so, he twists either the facts or the bible or both to match. I mean, he actually expects me to believe that the people who wrote the bible in antiquity (actually by the latest estimates, not earlier than 600-800 BCE) knew about the Theory of Relativity and how time changes relative to velocity and how old the universe really is. He claims that the six days of creation described in Genesis are equable to the 15 billion odd years since the Big Bang! I mean, come on!!!!!

And he goes on and on, denying evolution one second and accepting it the next, taking parts of it that suit his fancy and discarding what he does not like. So dinosaurs existed, but humans and apes didn't have common ancestors, or maybe God was driving forward human evolution much faster than possible by natural means. Of course, all the miracles he performed in Exodus were so planned so that they didn't seem 'unnatural'. So why not make our genetic structure so that the 'required number of mutations for human evolution' (his words) could have occurred in the time frame available (for that is his biggest criticism of evolution, apparently there was not much time available)? Didn't his god know that sooner or later we'd be asking these questions and his 'work' as it were would be laid bare? Or was that too part of his divine plan? Needless to say, he doesn't even begin to make sense. Some questions he puts are valid ones, like the Cambrian explosion, but I don't agree to his hypothesis that since they are unexplained phenomena, they point to the existence of god. What if science does answer his question? Will that mean god no longer exists.

What he says about the alleged 'missing links' is pure nonsense. There are a number of species where gradual evolution is seen to occur and if you close your eyes and refuse to accept facts, I really can't help you. As for human evolution, we feel happy labelling some fossilized bones here and there as Homo habilis or Homo ergaster and so on, but if we really took our ancestry back from 'modern' humans back to them, there would be an unbroken line from them to us; with every generation related closely to the one before and the one after and no clear distinguishing boundaries between them.

His six days of Genesis = 15 billion years of the universe is a truly fantastic hypothesis. Apart from what he expects our ancient ancestors to know about advanced physics (and without the aid of any modern equipment etc.) he conveniently forgets that the 6 day work week with one day off was an invention of the Sumerians who predate the bible. They counted in sixes and as far as I'm aware no other major civilization did that. We get the 60 second/minute cycle from them, as also the 360 degrees in a circle and so forth. But that's a digression.

In the latest chapter I'm reading, he claims all 'humans' before Adam came on the scene were animals in the sense that they lacked the 'soul' that god breathed into Adam. Of course this happened only 6000 years ago, so before that Homo sapiens were brutes and then suddenly became 'human'. I haven't finished that chapter yet so I'm waiting on tenterhooks to see how he explains that Adam was afraid and lonely, and how god fashioned Eve from his rib…..

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Windows 7

Been using Windows 7 for a couple of weeks now, and I must say this is MS' best effort yet. Very smooth and fast. Boot up and shut down times are down to less than a minute even with AV and sundry programs and all or almost all software that I am wont to use run perfectly on it, even some of Win XP vintage. Haven't used the libraries much yet but the search functionality is well implemented and it gives you more features than previous iterations. The Aeropeek and similar addons to the GUI are thoughtful and work really well. I find myself using them all the time since I have multiple windows open quite frequently. The floating gadgets are also a much better option than Vista's sidebar. But the one thing that I always marvel at is the speed of the system. Having gotten used to yawn inducing boot-up times from the XP days, I love the fact that I switch on my desktop as soon as I reach home and it's up and running by the time I take my boots off. In contrast my laptop running Vista takes almost 4 minutes to bootup. Of course it's an aging machine so there's no comparison but still it pleases me!

Compatibility issues are also handled more efficiently now and you have to option to go online to search for drivers/solutions. UAC is less obtrusive, thankfully! All in all, it's a nice bit of software and works quite well.

I've read that Win7 is what Vista was meant to be. Many features that you find in Win7 were originally planned for Vista but time constraints and an ever-increasing gap since WinXP came out caused its premature release. Maybe that's true and if so, it speaks volumes for MS' unconcern for its customers, saddling their customers with a half-baked product and forcing them to upgrade further within a couple of years. But I never really found Vista hamstrung in any way. People have complained to me day in and day out about how it's not smooth, that there are compatibility issues and it's not stable and what not. Mostly I hear that it's just not good enough. Of course when I have asked for what specific problems these people have faced with Vista I get non-committal grunts, and half explanations about how they've heard bad things about Vista. The one problem I did find was Vista's incompatibility with SQL server and many commercial apps (not too sure which, but those were the only concrete answers I got, from IT people in various sectors). But for the average homeuser, I don't know what the brouhaha is all about. It was a fine piece of software and worked well. Of course, Win7 works better but Vista was an improvement over XP too. So it is with every new version of any software. Vista was just a victim of bad publicity more than anything else in my view.

Not that I am a fan of MS in any sense of the word. I have read what they/ve donein the past with Netscape and what they tried to do with other SW manufacturers with XPs launch (I remember they weren't allowing any non MS service icon on the desktop) and how they've coerced PC makers to exclude various software programs from their OEM set. But with all the calumny poured upon them and rightly so, they still had come out with a good piece of programming with Vista and they still got pasted!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Justice indeed

18 months is all he got. For molesting a poor defenceless girl, for getting her expelled from school for complaining, for making her life so miserable that she committed suicide, for falsely accusing and imprisoning her brother and humiliating him, for threatening her father and friend and anyone who dared stand up to support her. For all these crimes he got 18 months in prison; which I'm sure he'll pass in relative luxury as befits one who has 'contacts' at the highest level in the police and politics.

If ever there was a case in recent memory that exposed the rotting mould of corruption eating away at our country's very foundations, it was this. Time after time it was shown how every politician and every policeman supported this man in his heinous crime and shielded him from any and all repercussions while commending him for his 'services'. No matter who was in power, this man was safe. It was bastardy of the vilest sort. This man could subvert the whole system and direct it at one helpless girl who had dared to stand up against him. And in the end he got away with it, with barely a rap on the knuckles.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

As a teenager, when I felt I knew pretty much everything there was to know in the world, I thought I had grown quite cynical and jaded with the world. I wrote poems about it, talked about it with friends over drinks and generally behaved in the most blasé fashion possible. I had, of course no idea what an education in cynicism and callousness the world had prepared for me! Now, ten years removed from college and five years since I left the hostel, I find myself realising what cynicism truly means. How it feels to look at everything with mistrust and to question each and every action. To doubt every person you come in contact with, even people I am here to cure and heal, what to talk about colleagues! I used to think that it was the vagaries of life that had made me sad and had smothered the happy soul inside me. now I realise that I am not so much sad as devoid of happiness. The unadulterated joys of youth I now experience through a thick sheen of tiredness and bitterness. I look further, I look deeper; not for the hidden comforts in tragedies, but for the phantoms of sorrow in pleasures. And find them I do, for I am a skilled searcher. I see a pristine pond in front of me and I muddy the waters, I see the rainbow in the sky and I put on my sunglasses, I see arms spread wide in welcome and dream up hidden daggers in the sleeves……

Friday, May 21, 2010

Blank Diaries..

I wrote once ages ago, when I used to write a diary, a proper paper one, that there is no more empty feeling than sitting in front of a blank piece of paper. I don't lay claim to be the originator of this quote, I'm sure someone said it before me. But the meaning I meant to convey then still rings true even though the UHVPN diary has been replaced by this laptop and my trusty Reynolds 045 by this touch type keyboard.

You feel so desolate when the white page stares back at you unstained, as if rebuking and mocking you for not having a word to write. When I had begun writing that old diary way back in '93, it was a Herculean task. I'd start every entry with, "I don't know what to write". Then later I got into the habit and filled in pages after pages. Of course, most of what I penned down was what I recollected of my school days. Small incidents, fights, games, the fun we had, everything I could remember. I felt a great sadness at leaving school. On the one hand was the excitement of going to college and not having to wear uniforms and being able to bunk classes, but on the other hand there were the pangs of sorrow at separating from so many of my close friends. Having been in the same school from kindergarten to matriculation, I had put down roots, as it were, there. I had had the same teachers, the same friends, the same everything for over 10 years, and 10 of the formative years of my life. So I knew I was going to miss it all. So I wanted to remember all of it, and I set about penning down what I fancifully called my 'memoirs' every day. At the time I had thought it was just an excuse for me to have something to write everyday. Looking back at it though, I am so thankful I did! So many little instances and events, things I'd never have remembered if I hadn't put them down bring so much joy to me as I read through them again.

Of course as time passed and I grew both older and into the habit of writing a diary, my entries grew more personal and introspective. Rather than just mentioning what had happened, I would talk about what I felt and why I thought I felt it. Then when I was going through a very rough patch in '97, my writing was cathartic to me. All the self doubts that plagued me came out of my pen to taint the pages in front of me and I felt somewhat cleansed. My diary, as an extension of my own self, became the friend and counsellor I desperately needed at that time in my life.

Once I was out of the hostel though, things took a different shape and circumstances got way out of my hand. I tried to regain in the habit during MS, but couldn't. A few entries here and there were the most I could manage. Now it's been ages since I wrote my diary and I wonder if I have a lost a big part of me with it.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Had planned to write my third and final instalment on 'The Argumentative Indian", but reading has taken a back-seat to driving to work, as it were. I had thought of a lot to say about Sen's views on the Indian N-bomb, but I've forgotten most of it and will have to go through that chapter again.

Read a few blogs the other day. Neha politely informed me that the way to get people reading my blog was to read and follow other's posts. Saw that Jyoti had a blog and went through it. She hasn't been quite active on it lately, though I'm one to say! Went through Lisa Ray's entries too and read about her struggle with Multiple Myeloma. How her marrow transplant felt like and how she fought to maintain a positive outlook towards life. In one of her latest entries from Rishikesh, she talks about how she longs to live and enjoy life longer! Now that's a sentence I get to hear from so many people, but it's so poignant when I hear it from a person about to die, who's sure to die. I saw it in my brother-in-law as he was diagnosed with a particularly malignant tumour and tried to combat it briefly, before it took his life this March. Even though my wife and I never told him just how bad the situation was (and it was bad, with brain metastasis and multiple lesions in the lung), and for a brief period when he was responding to the chemotherapy and radiotherapy he believed us, he knew his end was near. It was pitiful to see him wishing for a few more years of life so he could better provide for his wife and son who he was leaving destitute, or almost so. I knew that he had scant months to live. That every day was a miracle, the way the tumour was pressing on the vital centres of the brain. It was sad to see him begging for life and knowing that there was nothing that could be done for him. We weren't very close so it wasn't a specific response but a more general one but I could see how very unfortunate it was.

I wonder how it would be to die young. When I look at the future, I think of all I have planned for it, a house, another car, a den for myself which would be my personal retreat, growing older and retiring, and finally enjoying the life I have worked hard to achieve. What if I were to die tomorrow? Or if I got to know that I had an incurable disease and would die soon? How would I react? A part of me, the tired, jaded part of me says I would take the news resignedly. What have I to live for anyway? I'm not doing anything so momentous that my dying would take away something from a great deal of people. Then I start wondering what that last moment would be like. Lying on my death bed, waiting for the last breath to leave my body, wondering how my consciousness would fade… would my hearing go first or my vision? Would I be blind and deaf, or would I hallucinate about events long past? Would I feel the pain of leaving behind my loved ones or would my brain be too out of order to do that? What would my last thought be and how would it fade? Slowly merging into oblivion or suddenly ceasing in mid-flow?