I’ve recently acquired a craze for watching documentaries. I’ve watched mostly economic and social issues and few scientific ones. It’s becoming a hobby of mine. The latest one is called “Atheism Tapes” by Jonathan Miller.
I started viewing these tapes because both belief and disbelief in religion has been in tandem for a large part in my life. When I was younger, my life was religiously intense with my grandfather being a central role as a very religious man with several rituals in everyday life. My grandfather has been a strong influence in all principles in my life and I have tremendous love and respect for him. Somewhere in college, I began to rethink my religious beliefs which were unquestioned till then. The defining moment was when my parents had taken me to Puttaparthi, as they were strong devotees of Sai Baba where I had this epiphany of disbelief (for background, Sai Baba is the self-proclaimed incarnation of Sathya Sai Baba, a spiritual teacher with a mix of Hindu and Muslim teachings). The place was intensely emotional and I think that really helped me jolt out of my ineptitude. I looked around me and just failed to understand why people were crying and falling to their knees. I saw the whole place as an exploitation of their desperation. Later on, as I travelled to and lived in different parts of the world, interacted with people from different religions, got married, had children, I had several phases when I questioned what I believed in.
But, the primary reason for watching these tapes was to understand why people in general are so keen on actively trying to convert people into a religion. Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge/understand non-belief? In contrary, I believe its very easy for folks to accept someone else believing in something different or even opposed to their own beliefs. They may not agree with the beliefs but they do acknowledge it. But, why are people so implicitly intolerant of others’ non-beliefs? The extreme case of this atheism. Tape 1 has a discussion about how this word is some sort of an accusation.
This is also a personal question for me because I find myself having to justify my non-beliefs with my parents and extended family on a frequent basis. My stand on religion is that god is a concept to explain the progressively shrinking realm of questions for which we have no answers. I don’t believe that we need to idolize this concept. I also do not believe we need to personify this concept and neither can I accept the reward/punishment model of most religions. I’m not an atheist. I do believe in some sort of universal life force/energy and for now, I’m comfortable in calling this energy/concept God.
Tape 1 – Colin McGinn
I liked several parts of Tape 1, especially the talk about post-theism which is loosely defined as the time after religion ceases to exist. This may not be in my lifetime, but I believe some of this exists in some pockets of our social life. A large part of life in America for me is reflective of this. Religion is not mentioned in the workplace or even among friends unless it’s a topic to be debated. Religion and its customs are made by choice. I go to the temple only with the intent of exposing my children to an informal education in religion. Life in India will not be so. Life in India in intrinsically tied up with religion. Everyday existence is filled with religious connotations. Having decided to move to India, (more on this on a later post), I have to brace myself for this.
I also agree with the speaker, Colin McGinn, on how non-belief is disheartening. I almost view it as a burden. It is the primary reason why I do want my children exposed to organized faith. I don’t believe that all organized faith is bad. I wish I could believe. But, neither do I want my children to blindly follow a faith without questioning. It is definitely complicated.
Tape 2 – Steven Weinberg
Compared to Tape 1, Tape 2 was terrible. I know very little of Steven Weinberg. But, his knowledge of Hinduism is appalling. The fact that he thinks that Hinduism can be summarized with the rules of “You don’t eat cows and you can’t cross the seas” is downright ludicrous. The narrator’s summary of Christianity and Buddhism “of course” (lets just add that in to make us look we’re generalizing) as “intellectually intelligible” reminds me of the colonial British’s condescending views of superiority. Bullshit! Do they know that Buddhism was evolved from several aspects of Hinduism and Hinduism was also heavily influenced and got moderated by Buddhism? The essence of rebirth and karma are some of the core tenants of Hinduism and not just “Don’t eat cows”. Steven Weinberg goes on to say that these non-intellectual religions have no theories and thus he cannot engage. The only thing I agreed with in this tape was the succinct statement at the end that “Science is a corrosive effect to religion and it’s a good thing too”.

