10. Some Critical Comments
In this concluding chapter, I will be making some critical comments on the thinkers and topics discussed in this book. I am not attempting a comprehensive critical assessment of all the thinkers that I have discussed. I will only be discussing the topics that I consider of fundamental philosophical importance and on which I have something useful to say. In a way, I will be presenting my own ideas in the context of the ideas of these thinkers.
Rationalism
All the thinkers discussed by me in this book have, broadly speaking, supported logical and scientific thinking as well as a rational morality. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, all of them are rationalists. Periyar and Kovoor have specifically given to themselves the label of "rationalist". M.N. Roy, too, has supported rationalism. Though Roy has primarily used the label of "humanist", he was also a rationalist and an atheist. He considered the promotion of rationalism and atheism as part of his humanist movement.
Ambedkar has tried to present Buddhism as rationalism. Gora, too, has supported the method of science, though he preferred the label of “atheist”. According to him, “verification is the demarcating line” between truth and falsehood. A.B.Shah was a supporter of scientific method. In fact, he wrote a book dealing exclusively with scientific method. Narsingh Narain, while emphasizing “common sense”, regarded scientific temper in the sense of loyalty to fact and readiness to revise opinions as one of the basic values of humanism. According to him, “the rejection of the doctrine of finality, and the extension of the scientific approach to religious problems” is “the most revolutionary aspect of Humanism”. Ramswaroop Verma, too, has emphasized rationality and scientific thinking in his writings. According to him, reason alone distinguishes human beings from other animals. A human being devoid of rationality becomes worse than animals. Thus, as I said in the very beginning, all the thinkers discussed by me in this book are, broadly speaking, rationalists.
However, I have already discussed in the chapter on Ambedkar, why, strictly speaking, Ambedkar cannot be described as a rationalist. His attempt to equate Buddhism with rationalism is not acceptable. Narsingh Narain and Ramswaroop Verma, too, have marred the purity of their rationalism by bringing in the concept of “religion” in one way or another. Though, I think, they have given up the substance of religion while only retaining the word “religion”.
I will discuss religion and Buddhism later in this chapter. As far as rationalism is concerned, I have already discussed it in the first chapter. I have given the formulation of “rationalism” as contained in my Buddhiwadi Ghoshna-patra (Rationalist Manifesto) or Andhvishwas ke Virudh (Against blind faith). I have also shown that this formulation is in consonance with the popular meaning of the word. I wish to quote it once again even at the risk of appearing repetitive:
Rationalism is not a closed set of conclusions, but a method of arriving at conclusions. As a mental attitude, rationalism gives supreme importance to reason for understanding and solving the problems of life. Rationalism rejects faith, intuition, authority and revelation as sources of knowledge. A rationalist uses reason for testing all conclusions, and accepts only those which are coherent and which correspond with the reality. A rationalist believes in the truth of a conclusion only to the extent of the evidence in support of its truth. If in any sphere of knowledge, sufficient evidence is not available for arriving at any conclusion, a rationalist suspends his or her judgment. In other words, a rationalist uses logic and scientific method for understanding this world.
Further,
Similarly, a rationalist also rejects the rigid and divisive morality based on blind faith in religious scriptures and on unreasonable and unscientific beliefs like God, heaven, hell and rebirth. He or she uses reasoning in the sphere of ethics as well, and accepts a rational morality based on human desires and needs. In short, the rationalist philosophy of life is based on reason.
I have supported rationalism in all my major writings since I wrote Andhvishwas ke Virudh, though I have increasingly used the word “humanism” along with “rationalism”. According to me, there are two basic elements in rationalism: one, upholding logical and scientific method of thinking; and two, supporting a rational, secular and human ethics based on basic human needs and desires.
I am aware of the international advocacy of the exclusive use of the word "humanism" without any prefix in preference to terms like “rationalism” and “atheism”, etc. for describing “the distinctive naturalistic life stance”. Besides, as I have discussed in the first chapter, the word “humanism” is increasingly being used as a synonym of “rationalism”. I have nothing against the use of the word “humanism” in the international context or even in the Indian context. But, personally, I hesitate in using the term “humanism”, without qualifying it with “rationalism”, for describing my own basic philosophical position, because, in the Indian context, the word “humanism” has also been used to describe the ideas of religious and semi-religious thinkers like Gandhi, Tagore and Aurobindo. Even in West, the word “religious humanism” is still in vogue. In contrast, my own thinking is totally secular or non-religious. I am in favor of discarding religion as well as the word “religion”. Therefore, I do not want my ideas to be confused with the religious variety of “humanism”. To avoid ambiguity and confusion, I prefer using “rationalism-humanism” or “rational humanism” instead of only “humanism”.
Another reason for retaining the word “rationalism” is that though the word “rationalism" and "humanism" have become synonyms; still there is a difference in the focus of the terms. In “rationalism” there is a clear emphasis on the rational method of thinking, which, according to me, is of central importance. For the same reason, I prefer the term “rationalism” to “atheism” for describing my basic philosophical position. As discussed in the first chapter, atheism is a logical consequence of rationalism. It is one of the conclusions we arrive at by using the rational method of thinking, though a very important one. I unhesitatingly use the label “atheist” for myself and I strongly advocate atheism, but for me rationalism is more basic than atheism. I am an atheist because I am a rationalist.
God
All the thinkers discussed in this book have rejected the belief in God. Therefore, all of them may be described as atheist. However, on taking a closer look, we find a difference in approach and emphasis. Gora used the word “positive atheism” for describing his ideas. Thus, Gora emphasized atheism much more than others. In fact, Gora actively worked for removing the prejudice against “atheism” and making it an acceptable and respectable term. However, apart from Gora, Periyar, too, was very explicit and emphatic about his atheism. In his later life, he used to start his public meetings by categorically asserting the non-existence of God:
There is no god.
There is no god.
There is no god at all.
M. N. Roy regarded the belief in God and fate as the strongest link in the chain of the slavery of the Indian people. He envisaged the Radical Democratic Movement as “the school to teach the Indian people to revolt against fate and the God or gods who preside over it.” Roy has not mentioned God even once in his twenty-two theses in which he has presented his new humanism mainly as a political philosophy. Ambedkar, too, did not believe in the existence of God. This is obvious from the reasons he has given for embracing Buddhism as well as from his interpretation of Buddhism in Buddha and His Dhamma.
Similarly, Kovoor, too, was explicit about his atheism. But, in his campaigns he concentrated mainly on miracle busting. A. B. Shah clearly rejected the belief in the existence of God. So did Ramswaroop Verma. According to Verma, the superstition of God will die out with the growth of scientific thinking. However, in his fight against brahminism he concentrated his fire on the doctrine of rebirth and karma. Among all the thinkers discussed in this book, Narsingh Narain had the softest approach towards God, though he himself did not believe in the existence of God.
Many humanists, says Narsingh Narain, seem to think that “rejection of God is the first necessity for rational living.” But, according to Narain, “this is as untenable as the opposite view, which is constantly dinned into our ears from other quarters, that atheism must lead to moral decay.” Narsingh Narain maintains that belief in God, by itself, does no harm. It is some further beliefs, usually associated with it, which have a bearing on our ideas of right and wrong and our practical aims. These are (1) that the will of God is revealed in this or that sacred book or through this or that prophet or incarnation and (2) linking morality with the idea of reward and punishment in another world or another life. Narsingh Narain is of the view that “where beliefs or speculation about God are not associated with further beliefs of this kind, there is no reason to make their rejection part of our common ground.”[emphasis added] The theism of men like Albert Einstein, Arthur Keith and A. N.Whitehead is, according to Narain, just as acceptable as the atheism of men like Julian Huxley, Corliss Lamont and M.N.Roy
As far as my views are concerned, I have clearly rejected the idea of God and some other ideas associated with the concept of God in my Andhavishwas ke Virudh. However, the idea of God has been discussed more comprehensively in my first published book, Kya Ishwar mar chuka hai?
In 1998, I published Is God Dead? which is a short introduction in English to my Hindi book Kya Ishwar mar chuka hai? In my Hindi book, I have discussed and rejected the traditional arguments in favor of the existence of God. The central idea of my book, as mentioned in the introduction of the first edition, is as follows:
We do not have a single logical argument for believing in the existence of god, whereas we have logical arguments for believing in the non-existence of god. Therefore, god is the biggest superstition of humankind. And it is logically wrong and morally harmful to base our philosophy of life on a superstition.
I have used “the problem of evil” as the main argument for disproving the existence of God. In short, the argument is that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god is logically inconsistent because of the presence of the evil in this world. I have asserted that the idea of God is a big hurdle obstructing the growth of human knowledge and morality or, in other words, the growth of human society. Therefore, we must get rid of the God idea.
I do not agree with the view of some humanists, including those who themselves do not believe in the existence of God, that humanists should leave God alone and concentrate on their own “positive” beliefs and activities. The belief in idea of God has many harmful consequences. Apart from obstructing the growth of knowledge by encouraging a superstitious mentality, the idea of God is an obstacle in developing morality in the true sense of the term. Divine determinism knocks the bottom out of morality by denying free will. Human beings can be held morally responsible for their actions only if they have freedom of choice. Believers in God often conveniently run away from their responsibility by taking shelter behind god and fate. In fact, there is no room for ethics in a consistent theism. Thus, it is not my position that atheists, too, can be moral or that the idea of God is unnecessary for ethics. On the contrary, I maintain that only an atheist can be moral in the true sense of the term.
Besides, in the name of God and “revealed” scriptures, the religious fundamentalists oppose social reforms, including changes in the direction of social equality. Therefore, the idea of God, in my opinion, cannot be ignored as a harmless superstition. It is not possible for rationalists and humanists, or for rational humanists, working in a God-dominated cultural atmosphere, to ignore this idea. I maintain that in a country like India promoting atheism should form a prominent part of the humanist agenda. One need not be defensive and apologetic about it.
As far as Narsingh Narain’s view regarding the idea of God not being harmful in itself but only when associated with some further ideas is concerned, I respond to this by saying that the idea of a omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, creator God, as found in the major theistic religions of the world, is harmful in itself, and, in fact, is also always associated with ideas which Narsingh Narain, too, considers harmful. If some one uses the word “God” in a sense far removed from the way the word has actually been used in the language, he or she is, I maintain, needlessly confusing others. Such persons will be well advised to drop the word “God” to avoid confusion. For example, pantheists who equate “God” with “nature” will be well advised to drop the word “God” and use the word “nature” itself, because by using the word “God” for “nature”, they needlessly confuse others. In any case, rationalists and humanists should not be unduly bothered about such deviant uses of the word “God” by some people. We must define our stance towards God on the basis of the main dictionary meaning of the word. In this sense, the idea of God is both untrue and harmful, and it must be rejected for rational living. I do not say that the rejection of God is the “first necessity for rational living” - obviously rational thinking is the first necessity for rational living - but nonetheless it is, I maintain, a very important necessity for rational living.
I also do not agree with the idea of linking “atheism” with beliefs, which may not have any logical connection with it. For sake of clarity and for avoiding confusion, I disfavor using a word arbitrarily in a sense, which is far removed from the way the word is actually used in the language. We have already discussed the meaning of “atheism” and “atheist” in the first chapter. A person who does not believe in the existence of god is an “atheist”, irrespective of her or his reasons for not believing in god. This does not imply any conclusions about his or her other beliefs. Gora radically departs from the established usage of the word “atheism” when he says, “in positive terms ‘atheism’ means man’s mastery over his world”. In fact, he has given a stipulative meaning of “atheism” from his side, which is very different from the lexical or reportive meaning of the term.
Because of his peculiar notion of “theism” and “atheism”, Gora has characterized materialism as “godless theism”, whereas, in fact, materialism is almost always atheistic. Keeping in mind the established usage of terms like “theism” and “atheism”, one may say that “godless theism” is a contradiction in terms.
Besides, in his “positive atheism” Gora has unnecessarily linked atheism with many ideas, such as partyless democracy, which do not have any logical connection with atheism. Consider, for instance, the following argument:
God does not exist.
Therefore, partyless democracy is desirable.
This is obviously an invalid argument, because it is quite possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. Whether partyless democracy is desirable or not is an independent question and it requires independent support. Its truth does not follow logically from atheism, nor the truth of atheism follows logically from the desirability of partyless democracy. Therefore, there is no point in designating “partyless democracy” as “atheistic politics” as Gora has done. The same is true about many other ideas, which Gora has linked with atheism in his “positive atheism”.
Let us take another example, which has somewhat closer link with atheism. Consider the following arguments:
(1) If God exists, human beings are not free.
God exists.
Therefore, human beings are not free.
(2) If God exists, human beings are not free.
Human beings are free.
Therefore, God does not exist.
(3) If God exists, human beings are not free.
Human beings are not free.
Therefore, God exists.
(4) If God exists, human beings are not free.
God does not exist.
Therefore human beings are free.
Out of these four arguments, the first and the second arguments are logically valid. In other words, in these arguments it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The second argument is also logically sound because both its premises as well as its conclusion are true. The conclusion of the first argument is false, in spite of its being a logically valid argument because one of its premises – God exists – is false.
However, the third and the fourth arguments are logically invalid. In other words, in these arguments it is possible for premises to be true and conclusion to be false. The third and the fourth argument commit respectively what are known in logic as the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
What all this technical discussion shows is that from the fact that human beings are free in the sense of having freedom of choice, we can validly infer that god does not exist (2). We can also show that there is no place for freedom of will in a consistent theism (1). But, from the fact that god does not exist we cannot validly infer the conclusion “human beings are free” (4). In other words, we cannot deduce the freedom of human will from the truth of atheism. I believe, like Gora, that human beings are free. It is also true that human beings cannot be treated as morally responsible for their actions if they do not have freedom of will. Nevertheless, we cannot equate belief in atheism with belief in freedom of will. A theist, as we have seen, cannot consistently believe in the freedom of will. As opposed to this, an atheist can consistently believe in freedom of will as Gora did. But, on the other hand, it is also logically possible for an atheist to deny freedom of will, as is the case with some materialists. Therefore, we cannot say that “atheism” means “freedom of will”. Thus, as I said earlier, there is no point in mixing up atheism with ideas, which do not have any logical connection with it. I, for one, prefer atheism, pure and simple.
Soul and life after death
All the thinkers discussed in this book have rejected the idea of soul, just as all of them have rejected the idea of God. According to Periyar, for example, the soul is never perceived. Its existence cannot be proved in a rational manner. The concept of soul is not needed for explaining death. As far as human life is concerned, says Periyar, everything ends with death. There is no soul or afterlife. Similarly, M. N. Roy, as a materialist or physical realist, rejects all supernatural entities like God and soul. Ambedkar, too, has pointed out in his Buddha and His Dhamma that Buddha has advanced many arguments against the existence of soul. Belief in existence of soul, just like belief in the existence of God is a source of superstition. However, according to Ambedkar, Buddha did believe in “rebirth” in a sense different from the traditional sense. Again, according to Gora, God, soul, and other world and after life are all falsehoods. Kovoor, too, rejects soul and life after death. He dismisses stories of rebirth as “pure myths”.
According to A. B. Shah, modern biology and physiology have shown that soul, transmigration and karma are “mere speculation”. Shah criticizes the way in which the doctrines of rebirth and karma have been used for justifying the varna-vyavastha. Ramswaroop Verma, too, has clearly rejected the doctrine of soul and rebirth. According to him, brahminism is rooted in the doctrine of rebirth and it is not possible to eradicate it without attacking the doctrine of rebirth and fatalism. According to Narsingh Narain, however, there is no need for humanists to consider the evidence for and against human survival; because whether we survive or not, says Narain, makes no difference to our practical ideas. Nevertheless, according to Narain, the belief in future life is not based on evidence.
As far as I am concerned, I have rejected the idea of soul and life after death in both Andhvishwas ke Virudh and Why I am Not a Hindu. However, the most elaborate exposition of my views on soul and life after death is to be found in my Hindi essay “Kya Atma Amar hai?”(Is the soul immortal?) In this essay, I have mainly discussed the concept of soul (atma) as found in the Bhagvad-Gita. The concept of soul as expounded in Gita involves four claims: one, a soul exists inside the body of every living human being. Two, the soul escapes from the body at the time of death. Three, the soul can exist even apart from the body. Four, later, the souls enter into new bodies.
According to me, these are all factual claims, and the burden of scientifically substantiating these claims is on the believers in the existence of soul. The soul has never been perceived by anyone. Therefore, if the believers are not able to provide any scientific proof in its favor, the rational and normal thing is to disbelieve in the existence of soul. Just claiming that “Bhagwan” Krishna has expounded the doctrine of soul in Gita cannot prove the truth of the idea of soul!
Still, in my essay, I have examined the claims of the believers in the existence of soul. The first claim regarding the existence of soul inside every living human body is the easiest one to test. If this statement is true, then it should be possible to perceive soul. The scientific knowledge of human body has increased manifold since the Gita was composed. We have acquired the knowledge of the existence and functions of different parts of human body. We have also acquired knowledge about minute human cells including chromosomes and genes. All this knowledge about human body has been gained by different processes such as dissection, x-ray, scanning, etc. Powerful microscopes, computers and other sophisticated instruments are being used for acquiring knowledge about human body. If a soul really exists inside the human body, we should have been able to gain knowledge about it through these processes.
It is not necessary that we should be able to see the soul, but we must get the knowledge of its existence through any of our five senses. The problem is that the supporters of soul claim that the soul is “beyond sense experience”. If this is really so, then it is not possible, in principle, to scientifically verify any of the claims made about the soul. The existence of soul can never be proved, and it is useless to waste time in senseless discussions about soul. In any case, the scientific explanation of death has nothing to do with soul. Medical doctors do not try to ascertain, before declaring a person as dead, whether the soul has moved out of the body! A person is declared dead when his or her brain stops functioning.
In my essay, I have also rejected the idea of rebirth. Since the soul does not exist, there is no question of rebirth. The idea of rebirth can have some meaning only if something like soul exists, through which consciousness and memory can be transferred from one body to another. Besides, we now have sufficient evidence to show that what is known as “mental life” is associated with brain and not with some imaginary “soul”. As I have said in my Why I am Not a Hindu, “Mind, consciousness, memory and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body.”
In fact, brain is also a part of human body. When the brain stops functioning at the time of death, consciousness and memory also cease to exist. Later, in most of the cases, the brain is physically destroyed either by being burnt or by being buried, leaving no room for rebirth or resurrection. Thus, according to me, just like the idea of god, the idea of soul, along with the related doctrine of rebirth, too, is both untrue and harmful.
Incidentally, I disagree with Narsingh Narain’s view that “there is no need for us, as humanists, to consider the evidence for and against human survival. For whether we survive or not makes no difference to our practical ideals.” I believe that whether we survive or not survive death does make a practical difference. If afterlife had been real, then it would have been very natural, normal and rational to think about it and to do something, if possible, in this life for improving it. Because afterlife is not real, it is wastage of time and misdirected effort to think about it or do anything about it. The non-existence of soul and afterlife shows that moksha, nirvana, mukti and attainment of heaven (swarga) are imaginary ethical ideals. We must concentrate on improving the one and only life we have .If I may quote once again from my Why I am Not a Hindu:
The problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and death is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid of something which simply does not exist) and moksha is an imaginary ideal, which has nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running after the imaginary ideal of moksha, it is far better to concentrate on improving and living well this one and only life, which we have.
Further, the idea of karma, which is linked to the idea of soul and rebirth, is a convenient tool for explaining away social evils like poverty and inequality, which can be removed by human effort. In the Hindu religion the doctrine has been used, in particular, as I have pointed out in Why I am Not a Hindu, for legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha:
…In Hinduism the doctrine of karma, along with the idea of god, has been used for providing ideological support to the unjust varna-vyavastha and for making it appear just and fair. In Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in "next life", if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.
Religion
Periyar, M.N.Roy, Gora, Kovoor and A.B.Shah, among the thinkers discussed in this book have clearly rejected religion. Ambedkar, on the other hand, advocated Buddhism, whereas Narsingh Narain has presented humanism as a religion. Ramswaroop Verma has given a stipulative definition of religion in which he has equated “religion” with humanism. As I have said earlier, Narsingh Narain and Verma have, given up the substance of religion, while only retaining the word “religion”. Thus, Ambedkar is the only thinker who has advocated a religion.
I have criticized religion in very clear terms in my Andhvishwas ke Virudh. I have maintained that the element of faith is central to all religions. The orthodox followers of all religions claim that their own religious scriptures and the statements of their founders are the final truths. This attitude of blind faith in religious scriptures obstructs free and critical thinking, which, in its turn, obstructs the growth of knowledge and causes intellectual, moral and social stagnation. Religious scriptures, like Veda, Bible and Koran etc., were written or spoken at a time when the growth of knowledge was much less compared to now. There are many statements in these scriptures, which do not have any logical or scientific basis. It is difficult for any rational and educated person to accept them.
I have also maintained that religion is a divisive influence in the society and it creates artificial barriers among human beings. The attitude of blind faith towards one’s own religion breeds contempt and intolerance towards followers of other religions. Religious conflict has caused much bloodshed and suffering in the world. Besides, much time, energy and money are wasted in senseless religious rituals, like idol-worship, prayers, etc. Therefore, it is best to get rid of all religions and to adopt a rational philosophy of life based on logical and scientific thinking.
Again, I have clearly said in my Why I am Not a Hindu:
Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad sense of the term “Hindu”, because as a rationalist and humanist I reject all religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.
A much more detailed analysis of religion is to be found in my Hindi book Dharma Darshan ( Philosophy of Religion). In this book, among other things, I have discussed the nature of religion and the foundation of religious belief.
There is a tendency, even among some “humanists”, to give a stipulative definition of religion while discussing religion. I have emphasized in my book that if we want to understand what religion actually is as against what we would like it to be, we should concentrate on objectively analyzing the major living religions of the world, namely, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism, and try to find out the basic common characteristics because of which they are classified as religion.
According to me, the various religions share the following important characteristics:
(1) Every religion encourages faith in its religious scriptures and/or in its founders.
(2) Every religion involves belief in the supernatural in one-way or another. For example, belief in god is shared by five out of seven religions mentioned above (Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic). Similarly, belief in soul is shared by six of them (except Buddhism). Finally, belief in after life is shared by all of them.
(3) Every religion includes certain ideas about the nature of the universe, purpose of human life, the ultimate human destiny and the highest end of human life. We may call it the life stance of that religion. This is expressed through the scriptures and the theology of that religion.
(4) Every religion has certain moral ideas associated with it. The religious scriptures of that religion are the source of these moral ideas.
(5) Every religion has its own mythology.
(6) All religions have their separate methods of worship. All of them have their separate public places of worship, such as temples, vihars, synagogues, churches, mosques and gurudwaras, etc.
(7) All religions have their separate rituals associated with birth, marriage, death etc. They also have their separate festivals
Thus, faith, worship, otherworldliness and supernaturalism are common to all religions. Faith, or in other words, strong belief even in the absence of evidence, is the foundation of religious belief. We may define religion as a system of beliefs, values and practices rooted in faith and oriented towards the “other world” or “afterlife”.
There is nothing wrong in trying to understand the nature of the world or in thinking about the ethical ends of human life. In fact, philosophy, as an academic discipline, takes up this task in a rational and systematic manner. The problem is that religion tries to answer such important philosophical questions on the basis of faith. Rationalists, on the other hand, are supporters of logic and scientific method. They reject faith, intuition, revelation, authority and other alleged extra-rational sources of knowledge. The religious attitude, thus, is the negation of the rationalist attitude. The rationalists emphasize reason as a source of knowledge whereas religions mostly emphasize faith. Therefore, it is natural and normal for rationalists to reject religion. There is no room for religion in a consistent rationalism. As I have said in the first chapter:
Rationalists have been opposed to superstitions, dogma, faith, authority, revelation and mysticism. A rationalist is a “free-thinker” or, in other words, a “person not accepting traditional religious teaching, but basing his ideas on reason”.
Ambedkar’s views on Rationalism and Religion
As I have already mentioned in the chapter on Ambedkar, though there are strong rationalist tendencies in his thought, and he has interpreted Buddhism in a rationalist manner; still Ambedkar cannot be, strictly speaking, described as a rationalist, since he ultimately embraced and advocated a religion, namely, Buddhism. Ambedkar not only embraced Buddhism but also went to the extent of equating Buddhism with rationalism.
It is true that among all religions Buddhism is closest to rationalism-humanism. Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism has brought it even closer to rationalism and humanism. Still, Ambedkar’s attempt to equate Buddhism with rationalism is not acceptable. Similarly, Ambedkar’s attempt to make a distinction between “religion” and “dhamma”, too, is not tenable. Buddhism, in the final analysis, is a religion and it does have negative religious features like faith, worship, and belief in life after death, which are common to all religions. It is not totally free from otherworldliness or supernaturalism. (See below for my assessment of Buddhism)
The so-called mahayan and vajrayan (as practiced traditionally in Tibet), for example, are full of religious mumbo jumbo. Even theravada, which is considered closer to Buddha’s original ideas, in not free from religious elements like faith, worship and belief in life after death. Huge idols of Buddha are worshipped in the Buddhist vihars (Buddha puja). Beliefs like life after death, rebirth, karma and “bondage” are accepted in Buddhism. In addition, “release” from the alleged “cycle of birth and death” or nirvana is regarded as the highest ethical end.
Just like mythologies of other religions, Buddhist mythology, too, is full of fantastic stories about birth and life of Buddha including his “previous births” (Jatak, which is a part of the Sutta Pittaka, contains stories about 547 previous births of Buddha.). In thervada Buddhist literature, all kinds of supernatural qualities have been attributed to Buddha. For instance, he could, remember his alleged previous births. It is claimed that he himself decided the place of his final birth (Kapilvastu) as well as the varna (kshatriya) in which he was to be born. Not only this, he also decided who were to be his father (Suddhodana) and mother (Mahamaya)! It is said that even before his birth, Brahmin astrologers had predicted, on the basis of a dream seen by his would be mother, that he will either become a universal monarch or the Buddha. This second story has also been repeated by Ambedkar in his The Buddha and His Dhamma.
Again, it is claimed that when Buddha, after getting “enlightened” is hesitating to teach, Brahma Sahampati himself appears and requests him to do so. Ambedkar, too, has repeated this story. Surprisingly, Ambedkar has even repeated stories about “previous births” of Buddha. Thus, Ambedkaryan or Bheemyan, which might be regarded as a form or variety of Buddhism, is relatively, but not totally, free from supernaturalism. It is certainly not free from faith, worship and mythology.
In his book The Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar has commended Buddhism for rejecting the infallibility of the Vedas, God, soul and varna-vyavastha. Besides, according to Ambedkar, Buddha did not believe in rebirth, karma and moksha as traditionally conceived.
It is widely recognized by scholars of Buddhism that Buddha did not believe in God and soul and also that he rejected the authority of the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha. However, according to the traditional interpretation of Buddhism, Buddha did believe in rebirth and the related doctrine of "bondage" and liberation (nirvana). Ambedkar's interpretation of Buddhism differs from the traditional interpretation on this point. He has interpreted “rebirth”, “karma” and “nibbana” in a new way. For example, he has interpreted “rebirth” in such a manner that it ceases to be rebirth in the normally understood sense of the term. But, regrettably, Ambedkar has not documented his book The Buddha and His Dhamma. Therefore, it is not possible to say how he arrived at his alternative interpretation of Buddhism. For example, Ambedkar has largely ignored the four noble truths into which early Buddhism is normally summarized. There are several passages in the Buddhist Sutta Pitaka, quoted by several modern scholars of Buddhism such as Rahul Sankritayayan and A. K. Warder, in which the four truths and the doctrine of rebirth have been attributed to Buddha. Sutta Pitaka is the primary source, which goes nearest to the ideas of Buddha. It is a part of the Tripitaka, which is regarded as religious scripture in Theravada Buddhism. It is difficult to accept any interpretation of Buddhism, which ignores the Tripitika.
Thus, though I agree, largely, with Ambedkar's criticism of Hinduism, (See my Why I am Not a Hindu) I do not endorse his call to embrace Buddhism. In my view, it is best to give up all religions and adopt rationalism-humanism or rational humanism as a philosophy of life.
Buddhism: An Assessment
Buddhism has been a source of inspiration for rationalists in India and to some extent in other parts of the world. For example, Periyar, M. N. Roy, Kovoor and Russell have referred approvingly to some of the ideas of Buddha, though none of them has advocated adoption of Buddhism as a religion.
As far as I am concerned, what I find attractive in Buddhism is its negative part, that is, the doctrines, which it rejects such as the infallibility of the Vedas, God, soul and the varna-vyavastha. I also favor its relative stress on rationality and self-effort. These aspects of Buddhism, I think, will be acceptable to any rationalist-humanist. However, as far as the positive side of Buddhism is considered, mainly the Buddhist diagnosis of the suffering in human life and its prescriptions for its removal, it is very difficult to accept it as fully satisfactory. Buddhism mainly regards birth, old age, disease and death as suffering. It considers birth (and rebirth) and desire as the main causes of suffering in this world. Attaining a stage of desirelessness and freedom from the alleged cycle of birth and death is considered the highest end (nirvana). This view, apart from involving the untenable assumptions of rebirth, amounts to saying “No” to this life. Life, on the whole, is regarded as something bad, which we ought to get rid of. Buddhism takes a one sided, negative and pessimistic view of life when it exclusively emphasizes dukha or suffering and pays inadequate attention to the role and place of sukha or happiness in human life. If we take a realistic view, we have to admit that we have both suffering and happiness in human life. If happiness is not considered worthy of recognition because it is transitory and impermanent, the same is true about unhappiness or suffering. Therefore, we must recognize the existence of sukha (happiness) in human life along with dukha (suffering). Our aim in life should be to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. As far as I can see, we have got this one and only one life in this one and only one world, and we should try to make the best of it by working for our own happiness and for the happiness of others. In other words, we should say “Yes” to life. Running after an imaginary nirvana or trying to attain a state of desirelessness in this life is not going to help. There is no need for us to fully eliminate our desires in order to lead a happy life, assuming that it is psychologically possible to do that. We only need to control our desires so that to bring harmony among them, and so that we do not do anything which transgresses on the freedom of others to work for their own happiness. Sometimes we have conflicting desires, which cannot be satisfied together, so we must find out or decide which of our desires are more basic and bring our other desires in harmony with them. Sometimes we might have to drop some of our desires, in other words, we might be forced not to encourage them or act on them. Besides, we must remain realistic and not unnecessarily multiply our desires, because if we go on chasing one desire after another we will not be able to lead a happy life. We can lead a happy life, and work for the happiness of others, if in addition to bringing harmony in our own desires; we bring our desires in harmony with the fundamental desires of others. We all desire life, happiness and freedom. So we must recognize and respect similar desires of others. The aim of any rational ethics should be to maximize the freedom of each individual to work for his or her happiness without transgressing on the similar freedom of others.
Another weakness of Buddhism as traditionally understood and interpreted is that it has not paid adequate attention to the social and political aspects of human problems. Buddha, for example, was interested in removing human suffering, which indeed is a laudable aim, but his diagnosis of human suffering left much to be desired. Buddha has identified birth, old age, disease and death as major sufferings. I have already stated that it is wrong to treat life itself as bad. Death is certainly a cause of human suffering but it cannot be eliminated by human effort. It can be and should be delayed as far as possible, but ultimately we have to minimize suffering caused by death by taking a realistic view of death and changing, as far as possible, our attitude towards it. If we realize that there is no prospect of anyone going to hell (or, for that matter, heaven) or being reborn as an owl or hog (or even as a brahmin) after death, this greatly reduces the fear of death. To the question what happens to the dying person after death? We may realistically reply: nothing, since the person concerned simply ceases to exist. So, death, after all, does not seem to be such a bad prospect for the dying person. As far as the suffering caused by the death of others, particularly the near and dear ones, is concerned, it is to some extent unavoidable. The only way it could be avoided is by having no love, compassion or attachment for anyone. However, the remedy of advocating a loveless world in order to avoid suffering caused by the death of the near and dear ones, seems to be worse than the disease. Therefore, there is no alternative to boldly enduring this suffering. The knowledge that nothing bad is going to happen to our near and dear ones after their death may help us in enduring the grief caused by their death. Nevertheless, the grief caused by not being able to see them, talk to them or touch them is bound to remain, and has to be endured.
As far as suffering caused by disease and old age is concerned, only following a healthy life style can mitigate these. The government or the state can do much here by providing better medical care, particularly for poor. Here we need both advancement in medical science and an efficient social and political mechanism for reaching medical facilities to everyone. Besides, society in general needs to change its attitude and cultivate a compassionate attitude towards old or diseased persons. In any case, trying to achieve a stage of desirelessness will not help in solving these problems.
Besides, there are many other causes of human sufferings that have being ignored by Buddha, for example, poverty. For a person who does not get two square meals, or does not have a proper roof over his or her head, or adequate clothes to wear; this itself is the biggest cause of suffering. We cannot prescribe for a starving person that he or she should start mediating and try to reach a stage of desirelessness! What she or he really needs is food, shelter and clothes.
Similarly, we have the problem of lack of adequate freedom to pursue ones happiness. In a dictatorial state lack of freedom for citizens and repression by the state machinery becomes a big cause of human suffering. In authoritarian patriarchal families, the patriarch denies freedom to other members of the family.
Again, social inequality or lack of equal respect or status in society is another cause of human suffering. In short, problems like poverty, illiteracy, absence of freedom, inequality and lack of proper medical care can be solved only by social and political action. Buddha has concentrated on causes of human suffering like death and old age for which much cannot be done, beyond a limit, by human effort. However, there are so many other causes of human suffering, which human beings face when they are alive (human beings do not face any problems when they are dead) and for which much can be done by human effort. We should concentrate on removing such causes of suffering instead of just brooding over old age and death.
Narsingh Narain on Humanism and Religion
Is humanism a religion? Narsingh Narain is in favor of calling humanism a religion. However, he has himself admitted that if we take into account the dictionary meaning of “religion”, humanism cannot be called a religion. According to him, humanism performs the same function in human life, which religion has performed so far. Therefore, it should be called a religion. I have emphasized again and again that in interest of clarity and for avoiding confusion, we should not use a word in a sense, which is far removed from the way it is actually used in the language. I have already discussed that faith, worship and supernaturalism are central to religion in the sense the word is actually used in the language. Humanism, with its emphasis on reason, cannot be a religion in this sense of the term. If we want to say something new, it is best to use new words. Trying to give new meaning to old words only creates confusion. It is better to call humanism a philosophy of life or a life stance.
Ramswaroop Verma’s Definition of Religion
According to Ramswaroop Verma, religion is nothing but the use of rationality for promoting human welfare. Verma, it seems, has equated religion with rationalism and humanism. He has stipulated a definition of "religion" from his own side, which is not in consonance with what religion actually is. I think Verma has given up the substance of religion while only retaining the word "religion". This, however, serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, it only creates confusion. I am in favor of discarding religion as well as the word “religion”. Some humanists have discarded religion but have tried to retain the word "religion". Their position is similar to that of pantheists, who have discarded God, as traditionally understood, but wish to retain the word “God”. I firmly believe that rationalists and humanists should not hesitate in discarding religion in totality or in attacking religion in a forthright manner. Rationalism cannot make any headway without attacking the religious mode of thinking and without discarding irrational and harmful ideas like God, soul and life after death, which are nurtured and sheltered by religion.
Varna-vyavastha or Brahminism
Periyar, Ambedkar and Ramswaroop Verma, among the thinkers discussed in this book have made a very strong attack on varna-vyavastha or brahminism. A. B. Shah and M. N. Roy, too, have criticized varna-vyavastha.
I have criticized varna-vyavastha in my Andhawishvash ke Virudh. However, an elaborate criticism of varna-vyavastha is to be found in my Why I am Not a Hindu.
In my essay Why I am Not a Hindu, I have explained why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family. In doing so I have concentrated mainly on (i) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (ii) the varna-vyavastha. In addition to these, I have briefly discussed and rejected the Hindu doctrines of moksha, karmavada and avatarvada in the concluding section of the essay.
In the section dealing with varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma, I have discussed the main features of chaturvarnya mainly on the basis of Manusmriti. Besides, I have given my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha. I have also discussed and rebutted some of the arguments of the apologists of varna-vyavastha like M. K. Gandhi. In short, as I have said in the essay, “I reject varna-vyavastha because it is irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being opposed to the democratic and human values of liberty, equality and fraternity”.
Apart from this, I believe that, in the Indian context, varna-vyavastha or brahminism is also a major source of superstition and unscientific thinking in the society. Therefore, rationalism and humanism cannot make any headway in India without attacking and confronting brahminism.
Ethics
Periyar, M. N. Roy, Gora, Kovoor and A. B. Shah have supported a rational and secular ethics. Even the ethics of Narsingh Narain and Ramswaroop Verma could be called secular, because they have discarded religion as traditionally understood. Ambedkar’s ethical ideas are linked to Buddhism as interpreted by him. He has made a distinction between “religion” and “dhamma”. Besides, he has equated “dhamma” with morality. According to him, Buddhism is not a religion but a “dhamma”. We have already discussed that Buddhism is a religion as it includes features like faith, worship and belief in life after death, which are common to all religions. It is true that Buddhism has an important ethical aspect. However, this is more or less true about all religions. It is wrong to suggest that Buddhism or any other religion is only a system of ethical ideas.
As far as I am concerned, my original interest in philosophy was stimulated by ethics. I became interested in ethics through my interest in social and political problems. In fact, I came to philosophy in search of a rational morality, at least as rational as possible. I believed, and still believe, that scientific method is the best method for resolving factual disagreements and arriving at conclusions regarding what is the case. However, I could not accept that the denotation of the term rational was the same as the denotation of the term scientific. I believed that there could be a method, not scientific in the empirical sense, yet rational, for resolving ethical disagreements or disagreements regarding what ought to be. The fact that the scientific method alone could not solve the fundamental problems of values, so I thought, in no way reduced the importance of such problems. They remain as fundamental and important as ever. On the other hand, the fact that the scientific method alone could not give an answer to the fundamental questions of ethics did not in any way reduce the importance of scientific method in the sphere of facts. I had hoped that studying philosophy could help me in finding a rational method for resolving ethical disagreements or, in other words, in arriving at a rational morality. A technical discussion of my ethical ideas is contained in the critical part of my research-paper “The Ethical Philosophy of Bertrand Russell” which is based on my book of the same title.
However, my ethical ideas are interwoven in all of my important philosophical writings, even when they do not deal directly or specifically with ethics. For example, in my Andhvishwas ke Virudh I have said:
A rationalist also rejects the rigid and divisive morality based on blind faith in religious scriptures and on unreasonable and unscientific beliefs like god, heaven, hell and rebirth. He or she uses reasoning in the sphere of ethics as well, and accepts a rational morality based on human desires and needs.
I have discussed religion and ethics in the last part of Andhvishwas ke Virudh. I have emphasized the need for delinking morality from religion. I have granted that every religion includes some moral ideas about “right” and “wrong”. However, this religious morality, I have maintained, is not based on logical and scientific thinking, but on faith and fear. It is not explained rationally why a particular action is “right” or “wrong”. On the contrary, the religious morality is sought to be enforced on the basis of beliefs like God, heaven, hell, etc. Blind faith in religious scriptures is the cornerstone of religious morality. Because of this blind faith in religious scriptures, the orthodox people often dogmatically cling to ethical ideas, which are not related to human needs, desires and to contemporary knowledge.
It is quite possible that certain actions, which have been called “right” in different religions, could also be considered “right” from an independent rationalist point of view. Nevertheless, on the other hand, different religions have sanctioned actions, which are totally wrong from a rationalist standpoint. For example, most of the religions have dual moral standards for man and woman, which go against the ideal of gender-equality. In Hindu religion, sanction has been provided to evils like varna-vyavastha and untouchability. In short, I have maintained that religious morality is illogical, narrow, inadequate and divisive. I have advocated a new, secular morality based on logical thinking and on facts arrived at by using the scientific method.
Ethics, according to me, is a human creation and a social need. Morality is inherent in the rational and social nature of human beings. Therefore, we can base human morality on such basic human needs and desires, which are shared by all human beings. Once we admit that the life, happiness and freedom of every human being is valuable in itself, we can judge the rightness or wrongness of human actions and moral rules on this basis. Such actions and moral rules, which increase the life, happiness and freedom of every individual, are right; and actions and moral rules, which take us in reverse direction, are wrong.
In my Kya Ishwar mar chuka hai? I have emphasized freedom of will and moral responsibility, while criticizing the God-idea. Some of my ethical ideas have also figured in Main Buddhiwadi Kaise Bana (How I became a Rationalist).
I have presented my ethical ideas in a more technical way in my “The Ethical Philosophy of Bertrand Russell” To begin with, I have supported Russell’s ethical non-cognitivism or the view that ethical statements cannot be true or false like factual ones. As I have said:
It appears to me that, as far as Russell's non-cognitivism is concerned, his arguments are incontrovertible. He is right in maintaining that in ethical disagreements of fundamental nature we cannot give arguments or evidence of the kind we can in scientific and factual disagreements. In addition, that this is so because ethical statements are not indicative, though they have been confused as such by a long line of ethical philosophers. A statement like "We ought to pursue happiness as an end" or "Happiness is good in itself" is not a factual one, because it does not assert what is the case but recommends what ought to be the case.
We call a factual statement true if there is a corresponding fact. But since ethical statements do not state facts, there is no question of there being a corresponding fact or the statement being true or false in the sense in which factual statements are.
Once we grant that non-cognitivism is true, we also have to admit that the attempts made by different cognitivist philosophers were misdirected to some extent, and that we have to make attempts in somewhat different direction, if we are to solve the problems of ethics at all.
Ethics, it is true, owing to the very nature of its problems cannot be objective in the sense in which physical sciences are. This, however, does not mean that reason has no role to play in ethical matters. As far as means are concerned, reason certainly plays a role. Moreover, even the ends need not be totally arbitrary. Both ends and means have to be compatible with the reality. Besides, we could derive the ends from the common desires of all or a majority of human beings. In this way we could arrive at an objective ethics, not objective in the sense of being independent of human desires, but objective in the sense of being independent of desires of a particular individual at a particular time. Though ethics cannot be independent of human desires - in fact, the demand for ethics totally independent of human desires is irrational in the sense that it is based on inadequate understanding of the nature of ethics - it certainly can be independent of desires of a particular individual at a particular time. In his Human Society in Ethics and Politics, Russell tried to give objectivity to ethics by basing it on the common desires of all or the majority of human beings. He was needlessly apologetic about his formulations because he had the ideal of physical sciences in his mind. Ethical ends are, after all, human ends, and there would be no ethics in a world devoid of human beings. The fact that the scientific method alone is not capable of solving the fundamental problems of ethics in no way undermines the importance of either the scientific method or of the problems of ethics. We have only to realize that the logic of ethical discourse is different from the logic of scientific discourse, and we have to investigate what that logic is. It appears to me that in case of fundamental ethical statements like "Happiness is good" the criterion of correspondence with facts has to be replaced by "in accordance with fundamental human desires". We may say that if the statement "Happiness is good" is in accordance with fundamental human desires, it is an "ethically sound" statement to make, even if it cannot be called "true" in the factual sense. In fact, I think it is an ethically sound statement keeping in mind the nature and function of ethical ideas as well as the fundamentals of human nature and the factual reality. To put it simply, life and happiness (satisfaction of desires) are good because all or almost all human beings desire it. Treating this as an axiom - and this is not an arbitrary one - we can derive the rest of ethics by applying reason and scientific method. In this way, we can develop a rational, secular and human ethics.
In the context of ancient Indian philosophy, my ethical ideas are closest to Lokayat, but, as is obvious from the foregoing discussion, I do not accept the Lokayat view in totality. Like Lokayat, I reject moksha or attainment of heaven as ethical ideals. Again, like Lokayat, I support hedonism. However, I do not support egoistic hedonism. My ethics is a refined version of altruistic hedonism or utilitarianism.
To sum up, I believe that rational humanism, which can be traced back to the twentieth century thinkers discussed in this book, is an adequate philosophy of life for all human beings. This philosophy of life consists of both a positive and a negative aspect. Positively it consists of: one, adopting logical and scientific method of thinking; and two, supporting a rational, secular and human ethics based on basic human needs and desires. Negatively it involves rejection of God, soul, afterlife and religion. In the Indian context, it also entails rejection of varna-vyavastha including untouchability.