Opinion

Relief from belief

To disprove god, Atheists need to allude to a god, and this notion gets further complicated by fence-sitters.

Farzana Versey September 06, 2010

Relief from belief

Stephen Hawking is baulking at the wrong evolutionary tree. He may choose gravity over God to rationalise the creation of the universe, but how does one explain away religion? Faith cannot be exclusive of creation, and there are provisions in it for the idea of destruction as well. Elemental and human factors come together to prop up holiness.

There is the supernatural waiting to accost you at every turn — with an organised belief system, forcing you into a group you may not wish to belong to, making you feel guilty about indulging in what has been created by the same divinity. Society gives no breathing space to those who do not believe in anything of a sacramental nature.

You travel and your itinerary perforce includes places of worship. You are supposed to admire the filigree on cold marble and look up at intimidating stained glass windows and paintings on ceilings. Your mementoes are statuettes of various deities, verses on stone plaques, and mouse pads that look like prayer mats.

As a consumer of objects I find it interesting, but is it initiating me into a faith? How many of us can proclaim without any obfuscation that we are atheists when we buy these symbols?

The problem with atheism as a doctrine is that it is a reaction to religion, therefore it accepts the force of a belief system. To disprove god, one needs to allude to a god. The notion gets further complicated by fence-sitters. Sufism is a copout and a sham. While claiming to cut off the trappings of rituals, it has formed its own cult, rites and living idols, be they poets, singers or those just high on hash.

Most commentators try to understand religion rationally, when logic goes against the faith concept. Theism is based on emotional investment. Structured atheism uses jugglery. Richard Dawkins’ “moths being attracted to flame” theory of religion cannot truly explain the herd mentality nor does it manage to justify a seeking-their-own-demise recklessness. People expect that, as believers, it is the belief that will sustain them.

Superstitions and miracles are devices to keep such synergy alive. Santa Claus too fits in this credo. A while ago a Nebraska legislator, Ernie Chambers, filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against God. He said God has made threats against him and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants”.

In one smart move, intentionally or otherwise, he made God answerable. A God with no fixed address who can reside anywhere in anyone and therefore can cause all the ills he accuses the respondent of. In a sense it is a most democratic suit. No individual based on specific affiliation can be blamed. Even the God is non-generic.

Chambers conveys that if a country refuses to call itself atheistic, then he has a case. As he stated: “The court itself acknowledges the existence of god. A consequence of that acknowledgment is recognition of god’s omniscience. Since god knows everything, god has notice of this lawsuit.”

If one is to use his argument, the case is not really against God but a wry look at subversion of truth.It is also questioning blind belief.

I think more than a one-to-one communion with a supreme being, believers are seeking the approval of the community or a feeling of belonging. A non-believer chooses to migrate to a ‘nowhere land’.

If religion is a telescope that makes you seek out only a specific constellation, the pure atheistic prism has space for the colours of spiritualism in an expansive sky.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 7^th, 2010.

COMMENTS (28)

hassanain | 14 years ago | Reply The problem with atheism is that if you take it to its logical conclusion (that there is no higher purpose) then life itself becomes meaningless. Also the atheists then mislead themselves when they say that morality is 'something' that there a place for morality. That is a result of their their cowardice, their refusal to confront the real issue, the real issue is not whether god exist or not, the real issue is that is there any value in conforming to society's mores? Morality is something society forces on you, through fear of punishment and ridicule. The freedom and liberation that athiests seek cannot be found by simple denial rejection of divinity, they are barking up the wrong tree. The thing which keeps people down, which keeps people enslaved is not religion, no. It is the collective expectations of the people around you. The true free man is not the one who in rejection of divinity keeps bowing to society, it is one who makes society bow before him . The true free man would be what society considers an absolute monster. The kind of people which run Pakistan. But after all if there is not higher purpose in life then the there is no merit in being vile or virtuous. They all live equally pointless lives and die. Except this difference, the vile man has more fun. Only in believing in some kind of higher purpose can his horrible world around us seem tolerable, only then can man have hope. There is also the question of fate. Why do things happen as they happen? Simple cause and effect? Then what is the ultimate cause? It ultimately matters not how the universe was created, since all religions teach that God is absolutely transcendent & immanent, it cannot be perceived. It is neither being or non-being. Gravity may have created the would but in gravity there is God. You could say nature itself is God. Why is there order in nature? The faithful need to realize that man should not try be apologetic before science. Science is the study of truth, and there is no merit in rejection of truth, science is just a tool. It must be embraced. But science is confined to the exoteric. It can tell us how it can not tell us why. If your concept of god is childish (like that of the athiests & the religious puritans) only then you will you find faith and science incompatible. People should should look further into themselves into the very essence of religion. "Why am I here?" they should ask themselves. Plotinus contemplated reality and heard this answer within himself, not we have made ourselves. This answer is as relevant today as it way then.

jai | 14 years ago | Reply The author says, "The problem with atheism as a doctrine is that it is a reaction to religion, therefore it accepts the force of a belief system. To disprove god, one needs to allude to a god". Atheism is not a doctrine. it is the lack of a doctrine or belief and it does not need to disprove god. The burden of proof is on the believer. So it is believers who need to prove the existence of their god. Epic fail with the article.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Anoop | 14 years ago | Reply I think what the writer is trying to tell is that its important to be Spiritual not Religious. Not believing in God is also spiritual thinking in a way.

Neeraj, India | 14 years ago | Reply Physics is the only science that is searching for God. We have no options but to wait till it prove or disproves him. Until then, let us take refuse in these immortal words of Josh Maleehabadi. " har ilm-o-yakeen hai ik guman ai saaki, har aan hai ik khwab-a-girahn hai saaki apne ko kahni rakh kar bhoola hun zaroor, nahi yeh yaad kahan ai saaki "

SKChadha | 14 years ago | Reply @ Dr. Qaisar Rashid – Sir, our prayers to god is to provide us the reasons of happenings around us which so far have no explanations in human mind. A single life span is too short for our journey in finding justification to all such supernatural happenings. The innumerable guiding, writings, preaching, teachings, innovations, data etc. collected over time immemorial to date, for our peaceful and better social living, is developed only out of that curiosity. The journey in exploring and finding truth for such happenings is a journey in search of God. If we look theism from this angle than all scholars, thinkers, scientists etc. are searchers of that force for which there was no explanation to humanity till their time. The humanity respects them all for their contribution to the society and being teacher for human values and making life good for human beings. The theism of Stephen Howking or Richard Dawkins can also be measured on that scale. Therefore, in my views, the theism is not measured just as theist or atheist but is required to be measured on a scale or a string ranging from positivity to negativity. Farzana – Your opinions are thought provoking and encourage me to respond and for that please forgive me. Yes, faith is practiced privately, but communalized widely. When we talk of belief systems, for human instinct two is a group and three is crowd. Communal forums and public places are not for practicing faith. It is for publicizing faith by few and accepting it by naive. The communal forums normally have Readers and limited R/Writers. At such forums, if people do not favour communal thought, they also do not go against it. This may be out of fear of crucifixion as community had not spared even Jesus Christ.

Areefa Azam | 14 years ago | Reply No offence but while explaining further the author is still confused within her expression. To me her concept about pro-atheism or theism, whatever she is is trying to defend or not defend, is not getting through the readers/ audience. To me her logic, justification and relativity is insufficient. Sorry but I expected better response which i guess was more precisely presented by a few commentators (to this blog). Hoping to read a better article/ blog by Ms. Varsi next time...

Tee | 14 years ago | Reply Sure they exist here. But I imagine atheists or even deists; theists, the kind who believe in a personal God but not in organized religion; and agnostics find it hard to go public with their views. Pity. I would love to know how many make up this segment of our country. Thank you for the article Farzana. It's a difficult topic to write on and I feel you handled it well.

vikas ranjan | 14 years ago | Reply @Dr Qadir Rashid "By the way, have you heard the word ‘conscience’? Why do you think the conscience of human beings (irrespective of religion, race and colour) has many things/concepts common in them?" Yes I have heard of 'conscience' but would you care to define it please. A Budhist will baulk(not bark) at the thought of killing an animal, another would consider it a divinely ordained duty, do both of them have 'conscience' or only one of them, which one? Take for example sex with a close relative(including cousins) some would baulk others welcome, 'conscience' please. And even if there are commonalities, so what? We belong to the same species, other animal species have commonalities too. There are animals that care for the young of the entire colony and not their own, is conscience involved. And about the 'transference of knowledge' what if the 'knowledge' so transfered is spurious. What if research proves it took millions of years if not billions instead of the Biblical seven days, for the world to evolve from the big bang. Do you still go on believing other elememnts of 'knowledge' provided by this source.And even if the author of the book was aware of history (the fate of sodom for example) how does it give him the power of divining or ordering the future. Looks like a bad case of 'Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc'.

ADIL | 14 years ago | Reply nice tht this showed up on Tribune. atheists exist in Pakistan too =D

Danish Qadimi | 14 years ago | Reply I suppose it is not very surprising that when a believer attacks non-believers, the language used is that of belief itself. Having said that the author here is caught into a linguistic trap and it does not help that she has not inquired into the epistemology of belief. A major mistake here is the conflation of atheism with non-theism. Strictly speaking, atheism is a belief that there is no God. This is a position of a believer and not a logical position. This is also not the position of Hawkings or even Dawkins, although the latter chooses not distinguish between the two, albeit unconvincingly in "the God Delusion". Both of these 2 are non-theists, ie people who claim that the existence or lack of existence can not be empirically proven. As for the many examples Ms. Versey cites for wanting to believe, I can only imagine that the pleasure of existing in a grand and spectacular universe is unmitgated by how it was created (or formed) as is well depicted by Dawkins in "unweaving the rainbow". The crucial question is how can one exist while knowing that much of what they believe about their universe is actual imaginary. Ms. Versey feels that is a superior state of being than considering her experiences reasonably. Many in our society us would likely agree with her. In this I dont mean merely believing in the existence of God or in one's religion but rather about the many myths that people construct about their religions. Some are benign and others, like violence against women in the guise of imaginary religious edicts, aredeadly. The problem with unfettered belief is that it does not allow a reference frame to return to reality. This is manifest all around us. Surely we can have more educated youngsters like Ms. Versey not contribute to this morass.

Dr Qaisar Rashid | 14 years ago | Reply @The author. I got your point. You have your own, personal kind of concepts and you least bother whether those are conventional or not. You convey them and then defend them by using 'I'. You mentioned 'terminology aside'. That happens when academics are refuted and one's own thoughts are developed and promoted as an innovative reality. But then there comes the problem. Those thoughts are not in conformity with the mainstream thoughts -- taking origin in and academic environment. Your detailed answer has proved my earlier assessment correct: I have found that the new generation writers are not deviated owing to being misled by someone but they adopt the wrong path in an effort to be super-intellectual. Under that spell, they tend to produce bizarre concepts and declare them innovation. Many such super-intellectuals have abandoned the habit of reading, like this author. They don’t update their knowledge and miss the basics. The concepts of the author of this article would be beaming across the globe through the media. That is a new dilemma we are facing now. If you possess so many personal views, who advised you to touch that touchy topic?

InCanada | 14 years ago | Reply Whether using the word "God" or "Spontaneous" as Hawking does, the matter remains just as hidden. But at least in using the word 'spontaneous' we would be further away from the "believers' who claim to know what God wants and that they are holy if they insist on enforcing their views onto the rest. I like the following quip... "May God save us from the believers."

Farzana Versey | 14 years ago | Reply Thank you for the diverse opinions. Likewise, do remember this is an op-ed piece based on one person's opinion. It is Hawking baulking at, for he is not barking up (not barking at) the wrong evolutionary tree since he is not looking for answers in the wrong place. Terminology aside, there is something like not taking things too literally. Hawking was merely used to begin the discussion. Transposing gravity and god was based on his statement:

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

After this, it was my call. And it is non-linear. I find it odd (not offensive) that people advise you to read up on all manner of works when 1) you are not dissecting the work in question; 2) they have not attempted to find out more about the writer whose work they are taking exception to. That said, here are a few additions: =Ghausia: Thank you, and the para you quoted, and the last one, are in fact the kernel of the piece. I mention atheism as a doctrine not is a doctrine, and it often is seen as such. Its reaction is not necessarily based on Bollywood-style anger, although many do give up the faith for such reasons, as some prefer to convert. The analogy would be that feminism of a certain kind is in response to the male principle. Would there be a need for feminism in an all-woman world? However, atheism in our social structure is a difficult proposition because we are surrounded by religions. The lack of breathing space I talk about. I do not care much about how the conscience behaves among different faiths; it individually manifests itself and is the result of learned behaviour – learned through the immediate environment and adapted to suit one’s personal value system. It can alter over a period of time or according to different situations. Unlike religion, it is not static. Re. the example of a stranger telling me something about my past, he is giving me information, not knowledge. Knowledge would be if s/he were there when I was six years old and taught me a few things. That said, prophesying about the future is intuition or coincidental. My faith in the person would not be based on that but on whether the people concerned are genuine in intent and I need to share my innermost desires and details with them. Such ‘knowledge’ cannot be the fulcrum of any kind of faith and is a disingenuous argument. I know pretty much what I did and where I was when I was six, so this is memory. Is memory knowledge or faith? The supernatural did not drop knowledge on our heads; the seeker of knowledge, or pleasure (sometimes the same thing), has to search on her/his own. I guess that is the difference between just reading and reading between the lines and seeing and perceiving (my reference to prism was meant to be that). If I have taken up issue with religion, then I have done so with atheism as well, including Dawkins who I have on an earlier occasion called an evangelist. =SK Chadha: I never diss anyone for their beliefs, unless it infringes on public space and causes problems. I believe that faith practised privately, unless there is a communal occasion, is important for a level-playing field. If instinct is important, then there are several natural aspects of human behaviour that are instinctual but looked down upon by the same belief systems. =Ravi Ghoplay: Far be it for me to make it an either/or scenario. I am in fact completely with you, and have already mentioned why gravity was mentioned in the first place. The positing is extraneous, not germane to this piece. The in-between is a non sequiter, though, for there could be a beyond instead. I think there is no need to be trapped by what you agree are human concepts. You believe in a secure space, some of us are risky riders and prefer a ‘nowhere land’ which is of course a metaphor for a vacuum that can be filled endlessly. =Malang: I am not discussing Spinoza or Einstein or anyone’s work here. Deism makes direct connection with god, and I am talking about a no-god scenario. You say:

Two people read a book, one thought it was a message from God and another didn’t. At its most basic, that is what being an atheist means.

Talk of being simplistic! What if the other did not read the book at all? Or did not want to? And what if the first also did not read the book but assumed there was a message from God in there? How many believers dissect the scriptures? There are permutations and ways of seeing that cannot be stuck in one groove. =I disagree with your conclusion: I don’t see how your comment fits in as a counter-argument to believers looking to belong, but yet your question is delightful…

Then why do suicide bombers blow themselves up?

Perhaps they think ‘we are family’?

Qalandar Khan Mastana | 14 years ago | Reply Hawking argues weather god is necessary for the creation of the universe. The relationship between god and religion, plausible as it may be, lies outside the scope of his thesis, hence the balking. But if one could think of a tree as religion, than god is its bark - stripe the tree of its bark, and it will rot from within and crumble on itself. So while Steve may appear to be balking, he certainly has chosen the right tree to bark up to. As to how evolution factors into this - that will require going "waist deep in the big muddy".

Dr Qaisar Rashid | 14 years ago | Reply @Sunny. I did not say that. Kindly read my comments again.

Dr Qaisar Rashid | 14 years ago | Reply @SKChadha. The way you have described your thoughts, you seem a theist. Have you read the book 'A History of God' written by Karen Armstrong. She says in her book that all the great traditions (I name them, religions) are saying the same thing at their core; the differences are just at the surface. Your thinking is like her. In my earlier comment, I asked the writer of this article about 'conscience', i.e, commonality of conscience in human beings despite differences of religion, race, ethnicity, etc. She must read the book I referred. The book also indicates that atheism is an 18th Century phenomenon -- when industrial revolution surged and when human being thought science and technology was also a way of life. Now, on Stephen Hawkings, in his book, A Brief History of Time, he prophesised that the 'mind of God' could be read/understood if the most fundamental laws of nature could be found. Hawking was talking in scientific sense but the meaning was derived that he was promoting existence of God. The thought/assertion was in line with the argument of Newton that the universe could not get birth out of a chaos: there must be an organized hand (mind) to arrange everything pro-human. Newton promoted the idea of a Grand Design by a Grand Designer. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking did reverse-sequencing and said that the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow the universe to create itself from nothing and that spontenously. That argument is hailed in the atheist circles. But the point is Hawking did not exlude the existence of God. He was just talking about the possibilities of modes of origin of universe with a planet earth having life on it. The point is when we say God created this earth/life or universe, we are focusing on his potency to do so and through God's potency we recognize his existence. For instance, if we think God has not created the universe/earth, can we deny his existence? Secondly, by saying God has not created the universe, we are not saying God is incapable of creating the universe and therefore he should not be understood through his potency. Existence of God is one thing and to prove his presence or absence through the mode of creation of the earth/universe is an entirely different thing. How can Hawking answer how the law of gravity and the quantum principles came into existence is yet to be seen? Was those automatic processes? Hawking did not refute existence of God and is still trying to find the sequence of events that led to creation of an organized Grand Design. By the way, evolution is not a topic of Hawkings. He is a physicists. Evolution was a topic of Darwin. I think the author of this article brought two diverse topic 'evolution and religion' together and presented in a way that invoked this discussion. The modern day atheists just look for one word, spontaneous, and then they interpret 'spontaneous' in terms of non-existence of God. More can be written on this relationship but I think enough for now. By the way, my commments were not meant to disgrace the author of this article. Sorry about that.

Malang | 14 years ago | Reply With all due respect Ms Versey, this is the most simplistic nonsense I have ever encountered on the 'God' debate. You completely fail to take 'deism' into account, which is a necessity when considering the works of scientists like Hawking, Einstein or even philosophers like Spinoza. These men refuse to 'define' God, because a) they cant and b) they are not addressing a theist god. They are beyond that pedestrian definition and deal rather with the passive creative force, a God that doesnt bother with us on a daily basis. Also your assertion "The problem with atheism as a doctrine is that it is a reaction to religion, therefore it accepts the force of a belief system" is flawed. Barring die-hard atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, most of atheism has not been the opposite of religion but rather the lack of it. Two people read a book, one thought it was a message from God and another didnt. At its most basic, that is what being an atheist means.

Sunny | 14 years ago | Reply Dr. Qaisar Rashid, I question your saying"Why do you think religions cannot be understood rationally?". First of all religions are based on sets of beliefs and beliefs can not be rationalized. Otherwise why would one call them beliefs? "There's an all knowing all powerful being"-what's the proof?.... Nothing! Many people,including you(no offense), take it for granted that religious beliefs are reasonable. And there's a reason for this. It's been bred into your mind since childhood. You become Christian,Muslim, Hindu,etc. only because you are born in that family and a particular set of beliefs is bred into you. Let me ask you one question " If God is omnipotent, can he create a being more powerful than himself. If yes then why call him the most powerful and if not then how come you say he is omnipotent?"

Farrukh | 14 years ago | Reply This is confusing...

Ravi Ghoplay | 14 years ago | Reply "He may choose gravity over God to rationalise the creation of the universe, but how does one explain away religion?" You mean there could be nothing in between the gravity of Hawking and religion of humans? Most people lack the imagination to understand that both the laws of physics and the tenets of religions are just human conceptions. The truth could be more fantastic beyond conception of both gatekeepers of science and religion. Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins of the world are much charlatans as mullahs and priests. When Hawking talks about universe created from nothing or Dawkin pontificates on how humans have evolved from amoebas, they are taking bigger leaps of faith than most theists who are at least humble enough to attribute their lack of understanding of origin of universe and life to some infinitely powerful intelligence rather than arrogantly state without concrete evidence that gravity can explain not just the physical structure of the universe but also millions of abstract ideas and emotions that we generate. ""I think more than a one-to-one communion with a supreme being, believers are seeking the approval of the community or a feeling of belonging. A non-believer chooses to migrate to a ‘nowhere land’."""" Why does everyone think that all people can be divided into two neat categories - the sheep-like believers and the non-conformist disappovers? There is a third category..people like me who don't need either approval of any community/ a feeling of belonging OR the need to migration to a nowhere land.. I stay in a pretty secure space where I see the universe and all life in it as a manifestation/dream of the infinite energy/mind/spirit. I see myself as a microscopic manifestation of this infinite but extremely aware and intelligent energy and think that my way of understanding the universe is far more rational and logical than the way charlatan astrophysicists, evolutionary biologists, the popes and the priests of the world insist on propagating.

SKChadha | 14 years ago | Reply “I think more than a one-to-one communion with a supreme being; believers are seeking the approval of the community or a feeling of belonging.” To my opinion, whenever great noble souls as thinker, philosopher and guide felt that peaceful human social living is in danger, they have given a right path to the society and religions are borne. This normally happened in society when nobody was prepared to accept others’ viewpoint. The great noble souls on such moments taking refuge of their supernatural powers, magic and thrilling expressions attracted the masses. At that time they discourse right path and guidance to society by attributing all their super-natural acts to divinity. The good prevailed over evil by the teachings of such noble souls and masses followed them. To my opinion, if noble souls attribute noble teaching to themselves, probably the following would have been much less. The teachings whatsoever noble, would have been reduced to just a ‘cult’. These teachings fascinated thinkers in society and they adopted them as right guidance. On the other hand it also mesmerized the less knowledgeable by supernatural acts and they adopted noble teachings inter alia out of fear-psychosis. The teachings are noble when they are accepted by both political superiors as well as political inferiors in society. Farzana, Theist or Atheist, if a person believes in binding the society for common good of all, he will attribute the right path not to himself or some other person but only to divinity. That is why, society respect more to theist as compared to atheist. It is basic human instinct that what a person sees is considered by him as achievable and can never considered by him as superior or unconquerable. The Almighty is indescribable in all religions and his teachings reach us through his noble ambassadors. A right ambassador will never ask the followers to follow him but insist that all believers should follow the indescribable Almighty. In our serene atmosphere when we try to be near to that almighty, the thoughts will always be for betterment of society and for social good. That is why when a person demands something for himself, his family or for limited humanity, it is stated that the person is never close to Almighty as compared to a person who is asking good for all and general. It hardly matters whether we visit to Mosque, Church or Temple or we celebrate Eid, X’mas or Diwali or for that matter any religious hocus pocus. Our religion, our faith, our strength is inside ourselves when we pray the Almighty in a lonely serene atmosphere and try to have a rapport with him. That is the real observance of religion. To my opinion the religion is personal to everyone and reflected in his thoughts and expressions as how much close he is to the humanity. The humanity, which is universal to all and not limited by cast, creed or one’s belief. I would like to have opinion of our readers, as to whether I am Theist or Atheist?

Stephen D'Souza | 14 years ago | Reply Stehpen Hawking has gone with the evidence, insofar as we are aware of the facts. He isn't choosing gravity OVER God. He is merely saying that gravity can explain the beginning of our universe. And he is providing an hypothesis which can be disproved empirically. The God argument, for what it's worth, has been framed over millenia and we simply can't avoid talking about it, even metaphorically. And that's exactly what Stephen Hawking did. He isn't speaking specifically about God or religion. Atheism isn't a doctrine - however much one may want to spin it. Some atheists may use their personal belief system as a doctrine but atheism, per se, isn't one. It merely and simply means an absence of belief in god. It is partly true, though, that atheism has to refer to the arguments framed by various believers in order to disprove them. But isn't that true of any debate or arguments one enters into? After all, the terms of the argument has to be framed in order for the argument itself to be intelligible!!

Babar | 14 years ago | Reply This article remind me of bollywood movie Nastik, where Amita Bachan becomes an atheist in retaliation for his childhood misfortunes. He is shown in the movie cursing god for his misfortunes. The movie reflects a very typical misconception among believers that atheism is reactionary to faith or a state of anger towards god. When the writer to this article said that "atheism as a doctrine is reaction to religion, therefore it accepts the force of a belief system", I can clearly see where she is coming from. From an atheist's point of view, god does not exist, there is nothing out there watching over us and hence there is no one to complain to or curse for our troubles. You will not find an atheist showing displeasure towards a Supreme Being or god since for an atheists god is an imagined character that does not exist in real.

Seher | 14 years ago | Reply Timely article when everyone is fighting over religion. You have summed it well for a not west audience. We believe in some spiritualism. Thank you for a thoughtful essay.

Dr Qaisar Rashid | 14 years ago | Reply By writing 'Stephen Hawking is baulking at the wrong evolutionary tree', I think you mean 'Stephen Hawking is barking at the wrong evolutionary tree'. You wrote: 'There is the supernatural waiting to accost you at every turn — with an organised belief system'. For your knowledge, that supernatural also tells why He is accosting us. Further, He tells why He thinks the survival of human species depends on certain ways -- prescribed by him. By the way, have you heard the word 'conscience'? Why do you think the conscience of human beings (irrespective of religion, race and colour) has many things/concepts common in them? The supernatural power did not send 'faith' you are rueing about. He descended 'knowledge' instead. Understand the difference between the two. Further, If a stranger meets you and tells you where you used to live when you were six years old and what happened on the day first when you joined such and such school, won't you believe in his words if he tells you something that may happen when you would reach the age of 60? By so saying, he is tranfering knowledge. It is now upto you if you believe in that knowledge and name it 'faith'. So the problme is not with 'faith', the point is if you believe in 'knowledge' or not. Who told you that atheism is a reaction to religion? Why do you think religions cannot be understood rationally? If a religious book tells you a story (life, culture, cause and mode of annihilation) of a nation/city/village passed hundred years ago and you excavate the land now and find everything as narrated, why do you think that book fails to meet the rational standards? The last para is rubbish. You made atheism a parallel concept to religion. You need to read the latest concepts of Stephen Hawking not only on universe but also on God. Find it out for yourself what he says about God in one of his latest articles. My further comments: I have found that the new generation writers are not deviated owing to being misled by someone but they adopt the wrong path in an effort to be super-intellectual. Under that spell, they tend to produce bizarre concepts and declare them innovation. Many such super-intellectuals have abandoned the habit of reading, like this author. They don't update their knowledge and miss the basics. The concepts of the author of this article would be beaming across the globe through the media. That is a new dilemma we are facing now.

I disagree with your conclusion | 14 years ago | Reply

I think more than a one-to-one communion with a supreme being, believers are seeking the approval of the community or a feeling of belonging.

Then why do suicide bombers blow themselves up?

areefa azam | 14 years ago | Reply Principally i agree with author but her expression is confusing. others might disagree but this is my opinion and mean no offense to anyone including author. But definitely she has penned on a very important yet controversal topic. waiting to read more comments.

Ghausia | 14 years ago | Reply I adore your writing. I particularly loved this paragraph; The problem with atheism as a doctrine is that it is a reaction to religion, therefore it accepts the force of a belief system. To disprove god, one needs to allude to a god. The notion gets further complicated by fence-sitters. Sufism is a copout and a sham. While claiming to cut off the trappings of rituals, it has formed its own cult, rites and living idols, be they poets, singers or those just high on hash. Great job as always Ms. Versey!

Replying to X