Arguments for God's Existence

I am putting forth the argument for God's existence here syllogistically.

A.
1. Every entity that begins to exist has a  cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4. The universe that contains energy and mind is best explained to have caused by God who is powerful and has  mind.

B.
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

4. Being designed implies a Designer

C.
1. If God did not exist, categorical moral laws would not exist.

2. Categorical moral laws exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Was Jesus of Nazareth Married to Mary Magdalene?

There is this idea that Jesus of Nazareth was actually married to Mary Magdalene and yet because the idea was blasphemous, since that would amount to portraying Jesus as a mere man, Christians hid this piece of truth. The story that Jesus was unmarried and he is divine was then proclaimed to the world by the Christians. But how plausible is this theory? Is it more plausible than the traditional story?

Jesus was a Jew, and he was raised according to the Jewish tradition. He knew his 'Book' well. Even at a young age of twelve, he showed deep understanding ( Luke 2. 47). According to Jewish belief, marriage was God's design. Procreation through sexual union was ordained by God himself. And, therefore, marriage was a way of life for both godly and ungodly individuals. Work, marriage, friendship etc were all godly activities. They became bad only when cheating, hatred, jealousy etc. would get entangled.

Being a member of a society that believed likewise, would Jesus marriage be considered an evil act by other members of his society? Of course not. Jesus had friends; he used to work and if he did get married that would be considered normal. Whether Jesus was divine or not had nothing to do with his marriage or lack thereof. And therefore there was absolutely no reason why the disciples who penned his 'biography' would hide such fact for fear of his divinity being compromised. If Jesus was divine, he would be divine even if he was married. So why were Jesus' 'biographers' silent about his marriage? Well, for the simple reason that he did not marry.

Writing to the Corinthians in around 55 A.D. Paul said “don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brother and Peter?” Paul did not say “don't we have the right to take with us a believing wife as our Lord Jesus had done?” Paul appealed to the apostles for examples, not to Jesus himself, because Jesus was not married. Had Jesus been married, he would definitely have appealed to the example set by Jesus himself. After all Paul or Peter or Jesus alike all considered marriage to be godly act. The fact is that Jesus simply was not married.

Those who think that if Jesus had married, then that would portray Jesus as a mere man, and not divine, are mistaken about the idea of marriage given in the Bible. The idea of Jesus' marriage was not at all blasphemous. It is just that Jesus actually never got married.

Can Religion & Science Be Friends?

The recently retired Oxford Professor and a biologist-atheist Richard Dawkins, in his book God Delusion, writes that the biblical God is “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. The book has sold over 2 million copies since it was published in 2006. Such words coming from an Oxford professor are unsettling; and even more unsettling are the number of people who bought such a book. This indeed showed that Dawkins has a huge following! When Prof. Alister McGrath, who is a biochemist-Christian theologian asked why there was such an anger, Dawkins replied that religion stopped people from raising intellectual questions and also that religion can and has been used as a lethal weapon, eg. 9/11.

Dawkins was illogical in explaining away religion in general for what Muslims did on 9/11 or for that matter members of a particular religion do. Dawkins should have posed that critique only to Muslims or to members of that particular religion that were espousing unjust and inhuman violence. However, for the other point that he raised, let us examine if it is in the nature of religion to stop people from raising questions critically.

“Different levels of explanation”

Take a question: Why is the water in the kettle boiling? One answer which is used at home is to say it is boiling because Thole wants to make tea. Another answer which is used in physics textbooks is to say that it is boiling because the vapour pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmospheric pressure. Though the two answers are different they are not contradictory. The answers are valid depending on the level it was asked. Take another case: A Christian will say God healed her of cancer. And this is as valid as saying that through surgery the cancerous growth was removed. Different answers, but at different level. Religious answers do not attempt to subvert and undermine scientific explanation. If a Christian wishes to counter an explanation given by science, she does that by going into scientific methodology. Otherwise, Christians take the explanation given by science and go on to add another level of explanation to the event which is theological/religious. The relationship between science and religion is more of mutual enrichment than that of warfare.

Given this nature of religious enterprise in adding another 'higher' dimension to the level of explanation offered, science and religion are not enemies but mutual friends; making the explanation of reality richer. Scientists, philosophers and theologians in the 18^th - 19^th centuries have made the mistake of importing “God” to explain an event when science failed to explain it. Twenty years later when science made the breakthrough, they removed “God” from the picture. This kind of approach of using “God” to fill the knowledge gap led to what is called 'god of the gap'. But this kind of “God” is not the God the Bible talks about. And Dawkins rightly said that such a “God” stopped people from raising critical questions. However, the God of the Bible is one who works through scientific laws, not one who works in shifts between him and scientific laws.

Christians have all the more meaningful reason to study science, for exploring the world is about knowing and enjoying God's creativity. New scientific discovery that leads to enhancing human flourishing is about undoing the effect of sin that Christ himself has been spearheading when he came to this earth on that first Christmas Day. It is for such reason that Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge, England, where many of the pioneering breakthough in nuclear physics have been made, has inscribed on its entrance Ps 111.2 – “Great are the works of the LORD, studied by all who take pleasure in them”. History witnessed that Christian religion in particular did not stop people from raising questions and deeper investigation of reality; it rather spurs them on.

Science Alone?

It is science that gave rise to the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A deadly bomb like Napalm used in theVietnam War by the US was invented by a brilliant scientific mind. It was a scientist like Joseph Mengele who performed horrifying medical experiments using his scientific skill on innocent people in the Concentration Camp. Science and scientists devoid of moral conscience can commit heinous crime on humanity. But this moral conscience has to come from a source outside of science. The crime mentioned however, does not mean that we negate all the good fruit of scientific enterprise.

Limit of Science

Scientific enterprise is a modest discipline. It does not try to answer questions about morality, nature of state, end purpose of human individual/society, beauty, art and so on. Yet these enterprises are extremely important for meaningful human existence. Therefore, it is rather naïve or arrogant when someone puts it up as science vs religion or that in this modern scientific age we don't do religion etc. For the world to be enthralling and livable we need religion, science and many more.

Conclusion

Is the God of the Bible really who he is as described by Richard Dawkins? Selective reading of the events of the Old Testament or the Bible is an incomplete way to understand the Bible. To get the fuller picture of what Christians understand of their God, look at Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God ( Col 1.15). This crucified and risen Jesus Christ, in whose being is rooted justice and love, embodied the totality of God. And it is at this man, Dawkins and his fans need a closer look to know the God of the Bible.

Maya in Śankara's Advaita Vedanta and Impediment to the Rise of Science in India

Maya is an important category in explaining the philosophy of Śankara (pronounced as Shankara). For him Maya is not pure illusion. It is a cross of the real and the unreal. It is neither existent nor non-existent nor both. It is not existent as the only one that exists is Brahman nor is it non-existent as it is responsible for the appearance of the Brahman as the world. It is called superimposition, like a shell being mistaken as silver. And when right knowledge arises this error vanishes. This relation between shell and silver is neither that of identity nor of difference nor of both. It is unique and is known as non-difference ( tadatmya). Thus, when right knowledge dawns, which is realisation of the oneness of jiva with the Paramatman, Maya vanishes. 

Śankara emphasizes the phenomenal point of view that the world is real as long as true knowledge does not dawn. It is not an illusion. It is a practical reality. In his book A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidas; 1983), Chandradhar Sharma writes, " He who imagines that Shankara's position means complete denial of this world, of this souls, of action, of philosophy, of religion and even of God, may know anything but Shankara Vedanta."

Just as it is said that Hegel is a born foe of Mysticism, Madhvacarya (b. 1197) may be said to be a born foe of Sankara. Madhva is the champion of dvaita (unqualified dualism) as much as Sankara is the champion of advaita (non-dualism). His hatred for Advaita is so great that he called Advaitins 'deceitful demons. For Madhva there is a real difference between God and the world; whereas for Sankara the difference is appearance, subjectively different, and not real as in the sense of being ontologically different.

In his book Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark quoted the very distinguished Joseph Needham, Oxford historian of Science, to conclude that the failure of the Chinese to develop science was due to their religion, to the inability of Chinese intellectuals to believe in the existence of laws of nature because the conception of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature never developed. Quoting Needham he continued, " The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being to naive for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it."  I believe it's not just the Taoist, the Advaita Vedantins as well would have scorned such an idea. Chandradhar Sharma noted, " Shankara... gave the final death-blow to Buddhistic philosophy", and after this we saw the rise of Advaita Vedanta into prominence among Indian religious scholars. And within Sankara's non-dualism there is no scope to recognize the 'lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature" because the concept of the difference between Creator and creation never fully developed.

I do think that Madhva's philosophy would provide a far better philosophical ground than Sankara's for science and moral philosophy to flourish in India. Christianity and Islam have such distinction between God and the world and would be equally fertile for scientific advancement. However, for the Hindus I believe the answer to human flourishing does not lie in Advaita Vedanta. Madhvacarya's Dvaita is perhaps a very viable alternative philosophy that needs further engagement.

One of My Favourite Hindi Film Songs

Should the Present Generation Ever Apologize for the Atrocities the Past Generation Committed?

It is not uncommon to hear some people say that the present generation is not responsible for the atrocities the past generation had committed, and therefore there is no reason why one should offer an apology. But is this argument really a valid one? I think it is not. Here is why I think so. 

Many Indians would take pride in the fact that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation,  had struggled for independence without using violence as his tool. If some people somewhere make false and denigrating remark about Gandhi, not only would these people protest because the content was false and denigrating but also because it is about someone who is close to their heart and mind. These people feel angry and insulted because they consider themselves to be sharing some kind of "solidarity" with Gandhiji. And when such false and insulting remarks are made, they feel angry because their leader with whom they share this sort of solidarity is insulted. And this sort of solidarity with people in the past who have achieved great things is common. People feel patriotic about telling their stories. The sense of patriotism surfaces in that person's heart  when such names are invoked because of this sort of solidarity.

It is also common to come across situation when we hear someone say, " I forgive my uncle for the way he took advantage of my widowed mother or sister or father". Or when someone say, "our family has forgiven their family for all the wrongdoing they have done in the past". When some people harmed my family members, I identify with them. The harm may not have anything to do with me at present, but because there is some sort of solidarity with my family members of the past, I identify myself with the event. If that solidarity with people of the past is not there, forgiveness does not make sense.

Thus, if we share some sort of solidarity with people of the past for which we feel patriotic or invoke forgiveness for their act or acts done unto them, we also must share in their guilt in some way. The fact that there is some sort of solidarity; some sort of 'shared narrative' between past and present is an essential component of a nation, a community and a family. And it is because of this sort of  relationship or solidarity that I think present generation do need to apologize wherever necessary for the atrocities the previous generation committed.