Is the universe God?

Since the time humans begun to look at their environment and ponder over its workings, they have imagined and dreamed of agencies beyond the physical macrocosm. Our ideas about God have evolved probably more than any other philosophy, from the naturalistic gods, to more elegantly engineered conceptions of dualistic God. The diversity in the supermarket of Gods is staggering, of all shapes, sizes and pretexts. Among them is the pantheistic divinity, which many trace back to Spinoza in his “The Ethics Concerning God”, but which in fact is as old as any other notion of God, pluming its roots in ancient Eastern philosophy. But Spinoza’s ideas were more atheistic rather than pantheistic, despite that, many continue to propose similar divine packages. The New Age enthusiasts, among others, assert fancy philosophical ideas, which plays on the argument of ignorance, to economize the gaps in our scientific understanding. Similar musings do creep up in science as well, because hey, science does not always get the brutal scrutiny it should.

The compartments of “consciousness” has much fuzziness surrounding it, which could easily be filled with conjecture and poorly founded conclusions. One such example is bio-centrism by Robert Lanza whose misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and fad philosophy “Is the apple still there, if you don’t look at it?” is appalling. It is basically the Chopda’s version of “the moon is not there until you look at it”. Yes, the color does not exist, but the light waves which produce that color do. Yes, the passage of time is an illusion but time itself is a fundamental property of universe. To make such a naive claim that the “universe out there does not exist, and is a figment of our thought” just regressively plays out logic. Where did the thought come from? It’s a dug hole with no end.

And here is the trap, God is too vague a term to even bring down to a narrow set of meaning. Natural laws are natural laws, choosing to call it God, would just be you having a hard time getting over it. What people often mean by God is “Anything that created the universe and us”, Oh, okay then, physical laws are God, whatever soothes your heart. Or maybe they mean “everything which we cannot control” in that, there is a higher structure that determines the outcome of events at a human scale. Things which are unpredictable and whose outcome cannot be known and which requires you to invoke a structure in order to make sense of them. But that ‘structure’ is basically the statistical probabilities in a certain range of outcomes, which many adore to call God. Then, some would ask “What’s the harm in naming God?” Well, nothing, just that you do not want to spell out the faculties of the world, and simply want them to linger in mystery for a bit more longer. 

The "All Religions" sorry game

The phrase "But all religions" has become the ultimate armor to deflect genuine criticism 


If you have ever been in a serious political discussion with the puritans or the theists, chances are that the phrase "But All Religions" will come up almost every time you are in the middle of scrutinizing theological underpinnings. The argument started off in the atheistic literature but is now being used rigorously by the apologists and the regressive leftists, or probably those who have little time re-assessing what they are saying, without realizing its implications.

Whenever any solemn debate with the Islamic theologians and scholars, on matters of women, homosexuals, rights of non-Muslims, and the hated apostates, come along, it is inevitable that "All religions" is going to be smacked hard at your face. End of discussion. This becomes a gigantic barricade for any one wanting to have an informed discussion about the topic and trying to challenge the obviously problematic parts in Islamic law and theology, which are always avoided in the Islamic world.

So, let's try to deconstruct the very argument. Are all religions equal? If you think yes, you either are poorly educated on the matter, or you are just being intellectually dishonest, because its not true. There are some theological aspects unique to Islam, which are inherently problematic, like the widely accepted killing of the apostates (people who leave Islam). No serious attempt to challenge it, among the theologians and the scholars has taken place so far. Its true that in the pre-Enlightenment West, the Church's teachings and the dogmas of Christianity revolved around the same notions of blasphemy, but there has been a history of political and social struggle, and oodles of external criticism hammered by philosophers and free-thinkers which shaped much of the liberal West we witness today. The fundamentalists of organized religions might come under the same category. But, you don't have to run for your life, if you left Jainism or Sikhism.

The "All religions" argument is the height of dishonesty and cheap apologia. Many liberals in the West, and even some atheists continue to use the same argument, without discerning what this entails, and how it is corrosive to our progress.

The Arrogant Atheists

They are cold. They are cynical. They are godlessly haughty. 

Somewhere between the towering heap of names and connotations, which are associated with us, vanity is the most popular and probably the oldest charge on the dubious. "Why atheists seem so arrogant?" is a query I get hounded with often whenever I try to put my fingers and dither the threads of religious thought and dogma.

Many in the past, had been stamped by similar accusations. The literature is enormous by the free-thinkers and the philosophers who had sought to defend their 'non-arrogance', throughout history. And many, continue to face the same rubric today.

So why are atheists so arrogant?

Well, because..they are not. They 'look' arrogant because our cultural conditioning has taught us that 'disobedience' to God is vanity. Disregard for the sacred is surrounded by taboo and voodoo. Its the same discourse of 'atheists being little nefarious satans', which some of us are already tired of. The whole 'godlessly haughty' wrangle stems from the same mores which maintain that goodness or good morality can only come from religion, of which obedience or submission to the divine is a major chunk. We 'look' arrogant or cold, because of the presupposition deeply rooted in our culture, that 'denying God' implies man taking control of his life, an ideal that is at the heart of religious doctrines. When Iblees was made Satan, when he refused to bow before God, was charged with conceit in the Islamic theology. But, he was 'conceited' not because he denied the existence of God, but because he considered himself God.

This reflects a preposterous misunderstanding which the religious have about atheists. They don't consider themselves God or think that they control everything. They simply think that its highly unlikely that such a being exists.

The problem is not with the atheists. It is with the tenets of our cultural upbringing which 'otherize' them, making them look like horned brutes breathing fire.