God, Religion, Conversion, Ghar-Wapasi & All That : Part-I

Blog-Series: God,... Part-1

God, Religion, Conversion,
Ghar-Wapasi, PK & All That

Part-I : God
Does He (She?) Exists?
And, Related Issues

God is at the root of religion, conversion, re-conversion, “ghar-wapsi”, ISIS, PK and the like; so let’s first start with God, Her/His existence, and the questions that are raised if one contends there is no God.

Does God Exist?
Related Questions

If there is no God,
then who created us,
and the universe?

This is often the question asked. The implication being that for anything to exist, it has to be created, and someone has to create it; and that someone is God. But, that’s a non sequitur. What if it is said that some processes created all the things, like the Big Bang and evolution, not God.

In that case, it would be claimed: “Then that process, the Big Bang, itself is God!”

But, if that’s what it is, there can be no objections, for it makes the concept singular, secular and independent of religions—no need to worship it, nor fight over it. It’s like the Einsteinian God.

Your Highness, I have no need of that hypothesis.
~  Pierre-Simon Laplace (23 March 1749 – 5 March 1827 : famous French scientist and mathematician who gave "Laplace Transform") in his reply to Napoleon when asked why there was no mention of God in his work on celestial mechanics (his five-volume Mécanique Céleste).

The god hypothesis is rather discredited.
~ Francis Crick

Who controls the universe?

A related question is: “Who controls the universe?”

The response is similar. A set of processes control the universe. If you want to collectively name them as God, fine. But, mind you, it is independent of religions and rituals.

It could be contested: “But, someone has to be in control, and it is God who controls everything, including all activities of all humans.”

But, if that is so, then what is left for a human to do himself or herself? Where is the Free Will? He or she can be as irresponsible as he or she wishes—if it’s all God's doing!

If God created us/universe;
then who created God?

If we say that God created us and the universe, the logical question that follows is: “Then, who created God?”

Of course, it would be argued: “Well, God is God—He did not have to be created. He always existed.”

When he was asked what God was doing before He made the world, Saint Augustine supposedly answered, “He was creating hell for people who ask questions like that.”
~ Irreligion by John Allen Paulos

However, many claim: “It’s not God that created man, rather it is man who created God:  God is but a concept devised by man.”

An atheist group in the West had paraphrased the first sentence of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...” as “In the beginning man created God...” and had put it up on Chicago buses as part of their ABC—Atheist Bus Campaign.

Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Thus, though I dislike to differ with such a great man, Voltaire was simply ludicrous when he said that if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. The human invention of god is the problem to begin with.
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

ID: Intelligent Design

Then there are the advocates of ID: Intelligent Design! Their contention is that such grand, great and complex design of the universe, of all living beings and of humans couldn’t have been thanks to an accident or the so-called evolution—it required a super-intelligent being, the God, to design them.

As science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do... Whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God… And then, after a while, we explain it, and so that’s no longer God’s realm.
~ Carl Sagan

This proposition is actually self-contradictory. If humans or nature are too complex to have evolved, and needed a super-being to design them, then that super-being itself ought to be even more complex than the things it created! How’s it that something less complex—humans—are not acceptable to us, unless designed by a super-being, while something more complex—super-being itself—is acceptable?

Besides, on closer critical examination of the human body and animals and plants and so on, we find that while many aspects are good and commendable, there are also many that are deficient and ill-designed. A perfectionist God would not have left such lacunas: they are the result of evolution, where some have gained, and some have suffered, where certain things have evolved well, and some not so well. There are so many defects in the design of the human machine itself: it is susceptible to too many diseases, it requires overmuch care and maintenance, its various body parts and functions degrade over time, joints wear out as their lubricants thin, retinas are prone to detachment, with the onset of middle-age one is susceptible to osteoporosis, arteries and veins get clogged leading to heart-attacks, there are insulin related malfunctions leading to diabetes and other consequent complications, our rib-cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs, spinal discs are thinner than that required, the bone-joints have inadequate padding, and so on—it is a long list.

ID reminds one of a humorous remark of Voltaire that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles!

(The Logic of)
A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist

(1) If God exists, then he is perfect.
(2) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe [and humans].
(3) If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
(4) But, the universe [and humans] is [are] not perfect.
(4) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe [and humans].
(4) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

~ Victor Stenger in his book “God: the Failed Hypothesis”

Personal God?

There is that concept of personal God—the one who keeps track of all that we do. That God has tremendous multi-tasking and parallel processing capabilities to track the minute activities of billions through the centuries, and that He would reward or punish them appropriately, is a little wild.

In a poll taken in 1998, only 7% of the members of the US National Academy of Sciences said they believed in personal God.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
~ Albert Einstein


Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”
~ George Carlin

Purpose/Meaning of Existence?

You also have people asking: “But, tell me, if there is no God, what is the purpose of existence? Why are we born, where do we go after death?”

There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Do millions of living beings, other than humans, ask this question? Does that poor, little ant, whom you could just crush, unconcerned, asks this question? Humans unnecessarily think they are something special. You are born and you die. That’s all. There is nothing before and nothing after, like for other animals. Why add to that stark truth that when you die—you die—the end. Because, when you add to the truth, you subtract from it. While you are alive, be good, do good work, for it benefits others. That’s all.

The Problem of Evil.
Is God a good God?

The Problem of Evil: One of the problems is that if God means to do good, why there is so much evil? And, an offending question is: Is God a good God?

(The Logic of)
The Problem of Evil

(1) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
(2) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
(3) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

~ Victor Stenger in his book “God: the Failed Hypothesis”

In general, things the world over are not good. Can we say that God’s management has been miserable? If He is all powerful and also kind, why has he allowed to let things slip so?

I don’t know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn’t.
~ Jules Renard

If it turns out that there is a God... the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
~ Woody Allen

Why do bad things happen to so many good people; and good things happen to so many bad people? Like Stendhal, the 19th-century French writer said, “God's only excuse is that he does not exist.”

There are convenient explanations like these are the results of Karma in previous life; or, one would ultimately go to heaven or hell—none of which can be verified.

Hell and heaven—these are convenient artefacts to fool the gullible. Some may say their purpose is to keep people on the right path! But then, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why does He allow people to go astray from the right path? Why doesn't he ensure that all are good and do good things, and all people and nations remain happy and prosperous. Why this drama of making some do good, some do bad, and so on?

If God is capable of negating all negatives, but is unwilling to do so, then he is malevolent, and not benevolent; if he is willing to negate the negatives, but is unable to do so, then he is not omnipotent; if he is both willing and capable, how come there are so many negatives in the world; and if he is neither willing nor capable, how come he is God?
~ a logical case on the web.
   The term "negatives" represents all that is evil, undesirable and bad.

The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it.
~ Bertrand Russell

Those who claim everything is controlled by God sometimes grant the argument that there is "Free-will" and then promptly blame it as being responsible for all evil. But, the fact is that not all evil has a human cause. What about natural disasters? Yes, crazy proselytizers like that Christian IAS evangelist from Tamil Nadu may have claimed that the Uttarakhand floods and devastation were thanks to the sin of worshipping false gods―the propagandist for the "compassionate" "religion of love" and "the only true religion" know no bounds of hatred in using sacrilegious language for other religions and in spreading gross falsehoods.

God’s Proof?

Getting down to the brass tacks: Is there an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God?

Well, NO!

For thousands of years humans have been talking about God. But, even after all the efforts of innumerable people in scores of countries for thousands of years, nobody has yet been able to provide a non-controversial or non-challengeable proof that God exists.

Hence, most probably, God does not exist.

To the question, “What’s the proof God doesn’t exist?”, there is a fitting counter-question, “Why disprove what has never been proved?”

An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.
~ John McCarthy

Divine Hiddenness!
If God exists,
why does He or She not show up?

Why can't God, for example, announce that on a given day and time He would appear at a specified venue, and all those interested—particularly the doubters, the atheists and the agnostics—may come and see Him, and listen to Him. For the convenience of the public, and for a much wider audience, He could announce a time table for a set of venues in each country, and enlighten people of the Truth—also, what He wants done, what He wants followed, which religion is true, which is false, or whether all are false, and if He has something distinct to propagate.

Considering the terrible misery around,
is God hiding because he has too much to hide?

Why does God have to show up only to a few chosen ones, and has to share the Godly wisdom or Godly edicts with only them, who then have a tough time convincing people that what they are saying is what God shared with them. Why does He have to take such an unreliable indirect path in making Himself heard. More so, when there are so many interpretations—each group claiming they have the monopoly on Truth. Why can’t He communicate directly with the people at large—with no go-betweens, intermediaries or middle-men. Why is He circuitous and indirect? Or, is it that the question of being indirect or direct does not arise because He actually does not exist!

It is this absence of evidence which is the evidence of His absence!
~ Victor Stenger in his book “God: the Failed Hypothesis”

If you believe a truck is coming towards you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck...Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing...They only act as though they believe because there are earthly benefits in doing so...
~ Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, in his book “God’s Debris”

Want God (a Good One) to Exist?

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
― Gene Roddenberry

I have too much respect for the idea of God to make it responsible for such an absurd world.
― Georges Duhamel

Rather than being anti-God or an atheist or an agnostic, one would actually like the God to exist: the God who is just, the God who is pro-good and anti-bad. How much nicer would the world then be. One would like to belong to “How-we-wish-a-good-God-existed!” cult. The current God or crop of gods don’t seem to measure up. They have miserably failed, and have only a miserable world to show up for their efforts.

God from Utilitarian Angle

Some argue: “Why bother about the existence or otherwise of God? The topic would remain controversial and unsettled. Because, it’s difficult to prove it either way: the existence or the non-existence of God. But, that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether God as a concept, even if She or He does not exist, is useful?

Let’s therefore examine the points and counterpoints from this angle.

Point-1

The God-belief helps keep people on the right path.

Counterpoint:

Does it?
Wrong-doers are also very religious and God-fearing. They worship God lest any harm should come to them despite their wrongful acts.

Take the case of Islamic terrorists like the ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Quaida, and the assorted groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What has God and religion led them to!

Or, take the case of the Christian Inquisitionists: what cruelty they perpretrated in the name of God and Christian faith!

Or, take the case of both Christians and Muslims: the terrible ordeals to which they subjected the Jews, from whom they actually derived their religions, and whose God is also their God!

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
~ Blaise Pascal

To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds.
~ Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Further, as mentioned before, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why does He allow people to go astray from the right path in the first place? Why doesn't he ensure that all are good and do good things, and all people and nations remain happy and prosperous. Why this drama of making some do good, some do bad, and have the fun?

Point-2

Belief in God keeps the society civilised and in peace.

Counterpoint:

A study has brought out the fact that areas/societies that were atheistic or less religious had lesser crime rate compared to religious societies.

Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

History is witness to the incontrovertible fact that unimaginable crimes, atrocities and violence have been perpetrated in the name of God and religion. Inquisition, colonialism hand-in-glove with Christianity, caste-based inequality, and Islamic internal and external wars and terror and denial of equality and rights, particularly to women, to name a few.

Point-3

Without God and religion societies would turn savage.

Counterpoint:

Without God and religion societies are likely to behave in a much, much more civilised manner, as a contentious factor that divides people would disappear.

With or without religion good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil―that takes religion.
~ Steven Weinberg

Less religious societies have been found to be more civil and peaceful.

The savagery of the European colonialists, aided by the Christian missionaries who accompanied them, is well documented.

The havoc wrecked by the Islamic armies all over the world in the name of God and religion, including those by Muhammad Ghori, Muhammad Ghaznavi and many others in India is too well known and documented by their own contemporaries.

Point-4

Moral and ethical behaviour is thanks to God and religion.

Counterpoint:

Moral and ethical behaviour and norms are independent of the belief in God and religion. Those norms preceded religion. All societies had many moral and ethical principles in common (even before the advent of the current dominant religions): all of them respected truth and condemned falsehood, admired the honest and looked down upon the dishonest, thought highly of hard-working persons and held the lazy in contempt, honoured bravery and despised cowardice, regarded generosity as a virtue and ingratitude a vice, valued love over hatred, and so on. Religions just co-opted them.

For example, the Golden Rule "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" attributed to Christ and Christianity actually has its origin in the saying of Confucius (551-479 BCE : He didn't project himself as a god or a prophet or founder of a religion): "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." And, the so-called Confucianism is not a religion in the traditional sense, it is a set of ethical and moral principles and a philosophical system rooted in the Chinese traditions and beliefs. There is a similar saying in (Hindu) Mahabharat ("This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt with.") which belongs to a much earlier time: over 3000 BCE! And, Mahabharat is NOT the foundational text of Hinduism, like the Bible or the Quran.

While religions adopted the good traditions of the societies they sprung from, some religions partially distorted and emasulated them or added new ones incorporating intolerance and hatred for those who didn't subscribe to their religion; and even accomodated slavery.

It is also worth noting that morality and good behaviour also have natural—biological and evolutionary—origin. Preservation of species requires co-operative behaviour and altruism: there is an evolutionary advantage in that. What to speak of humans even animals display such positive behaviour: monkeys work together to gather food and comfort distressed members of their group, dolphins push its sick to the surface to get air, whales and elephants protect their injured members, and so on.

Point-5

Aren't prayers answered? That's a huge plus.

Counterpoint:

The factual experience of most is that generally those prayers got answered where the conditions for success existed and you had exerted your very best. On the other hand, those prayers were generally not answered where the success-factors were not favourable and you had not fully exerted yourself. So, the winning factors are (a)fulfilment of conditions for success, and (b)your whole-hearted efforts. God is only incidental. Knowing these two, and not God, to be the real factors, it has been wisely said "God helps those who help themselves!", so that when the prayers are not answered the concerned person alone, and not God, may be faulted.

Additional Counterpoint:

Servility is feudal. Those who act servile and obsequious and also those to whom they bend down, we consider as reprehensible people. Both are despicable. The act of doing so and the act of allowing the same are obnoxious—an embarrassment in a free, civilised, democratic society.

Why do the same type of "chamchagiri" for God? Wouldn't God be feeling highly embarassed? Why keep praising God in songs and prayers? God is great! He doesn't need our acknowledgement and praise. And, why a good God would encourage or approve of such despicably servile acts? God would rather like to see people perform good acts. He wouldn't appreciate people wasting time (prayers and singing His praise) and money ("chadhawa" or monetary and material offerings) on him. He would rather you devoted that time and utilised that money to help the needy.

It had been claimed that prayed-for patients recovered better. However, scientific experiments have disproved that.

Granted though that prayers may help calm a person and thereby keep blood pressure under control (something that is possible through other means too). Also, if persons feel prayers help them in various ways, there can certainly be no objection to them. Do what makes you feel good, as long as it doesn't harm others. Don't invoke God and prayers to harm others.

Point-6

What about miracles and faith healings?
Serves public good. Isn't that great!

Counterpoint:

The so-called miracles and faith-healings by the Christian or Hindu or other saints, Godwomen, Godmen and so on, thanks to God's grace, are just trickery and plain fooling of gullible public. If they really wish to serve the needy and bring succour to the ailing why don't they register themselves with a hospital and serve like other doctors? Frauds of so many have been exposed, yet the gullible public, in search of easy shortcuts, flocks to them, and gets taken for a ride.

Positive Concept of God

There are, no doubt, positives to the positive concept of God.

That, however, is possible provided the God-concept is shorn of bigotry, narrowness, the exclusivist “Only My God is the ‘Real’ God” arrogance" of the latter two Abrahamic faiths and their associated menace of proselytization.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
~ Stephen  Roberts

If belief in God brings relief to those in distress, shores up confidence in the diffident, de-stresses the distressed, helps recovery from ailments, enables facing difficult times with equanimity, eggs one on into empathetic action for the needy, and so on, surely that’s a positive; provided, of course, one has not been tricked into the bigotry that “the belief in MY God alone results in deliverance”.

Awed by the expanse and the mysteries of the vast universe and wondering about the God’s role is also fine as long as it is kept distinct from religions and their obscurity.

Talking about God and religion in the evolutionary context of human culture and understanding is also fine, provided the discussions are academic and don’t affect the present.

Religious belief, faith, prayer and worship play a positive role when they bring peace, harmony and happiness; provided, of course, they fully accept those with different faiths, beliefs and religions, and respect them, are not exclusivist, and do not generate hatred and intolerance towards others.

What about Religion
if NO God?

Religion is a much more complex thing. It is a combination of God, society at a given historical stage and power politics. But, considering that its main foundation—God—is dicey, it would be beneficial for all not to take their religions too seriously.

From the angle of "God as the necessary condition and foundation of religion", the dominant Abrahamic religions have a problem; unlike Hinduism and the related religions of India, Buddhism and Jainism, which remain unaffected.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
~ Anonymous

As per www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html: “The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: ‘And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him’ (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. ‘Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”’ (John 20:29).”

As for Islam, “There is no God but Allah (La Ilaha Ila Allah), and Muhammad is His messenger”, hence there is no question of Islam bereft of God.

What about Hinduism
if NO God?

Hinduism and the related religions of India, Buddhism and Jainism, are very safe, and are on solid grounds, as they factor-in both atheism and non-existence of God: so democratic and broad-minded has been India's past—something unique, highly creditable, and in sharp contrast to Abrahamic religions.

While it is only in the last few centuries, with the advancement of science and knowledge, that there have been people in the West who have contested the existence of God and have advanced atheism or agnosticism; Hindu philosophy accepted such a position millennia ago—so rich has been Indian culture, philosophy and religion!

In Sanskrit, atheism is called nirisvaravada—doctrine of godlessness—and an atheist is called a nastik. Hindu atheists live by Hindu values and traditions, and for them Hinduism is a "way of life", not a religion, and they do not accept the existence of God. Among the six schools of Astika—theist—Hindu philosophy themselves, two do not accept God: the Samkhya and the early Mimamsa school. Both reject creator-God. Apart from this, there is an explicit atheist school of Hindu philosophy—that of Charvaka, established around 300 BC. It neither believes in the creationist-God, nor in after-life. Charvaka rejected both the Vedas and the caste-system.

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
~ Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda


In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism"–a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.
~ Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in an interview with Pranab Bardhan for the California Magazine published in the July–August 2006 edition by the University of California, Berkeley

The Samkhyapravacana Sūtra of the Samkhya school of Hinduism states that there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in its system, as the existence of God cannot be proved.

Classical Samkhya school of Hinduism argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds: an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever changing world; that God was only a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances; and that the idea of God is inconceivable and self-contradictory. It further argues that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like the real world.

Mimamsa school of Hinduism regards evidence proving the existence of God as insufficient; and argues that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world.

In Jainism, propagated by Lord Mahavira, there is no place for personal or impersonal God as the creator or sustainer of the universe, and there is no notion of outside force regulating prize and punishment.

Buddhism is more a spiritual philosophy and a "way of life" than a religion. It rejects the notion of creator-God. In fact, Buddhism does not concern itself with the existence of God at all.

Here is what Buddha said:

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.

His Highness The Dalai Lama has clarified that where a Buddhist teaching disagreed with science, he would attempt to change the teaching!

It is arrogantly promoted by the bigots, believed by the gullible and assumed by the unquestioning, without any convincing proof or evidence, that monotheism was a forward "progressive" step from polytheism. They fail to appreciate that polytheism made societies more tolerant, peaceful, democratic, open-minded, truth-seeking and respecting of various faiths and paths to God; while monotheism made them intolerant, aggresive and autocratic.

As has been wittily remarked, if monotheism was a forward "progressive" step from polytheism, the next logical forward progressive step would be to subtract one more God (and adopt atheism).

Conclusion

There is no convincing proof that God exists. Therefore, most probably God does not exist. God is at the foundation of religions. Hence, both gods and religions need not be taken literally and seriously.

What matters is your conduct and your ethical and just behaviour. Do you love and respect other humans irrespective of their nationality, race, caste, gender and religion? Do you respect women and ensure they have full freedom and equal rights and opportunities? Do you feel disturbed when others are hurt or unjustly treated? Are you empathetic? Are you compassionate? Do you help others?

One is not advocating or flaunting atheism or non-religion over God and religion. It is perfectly fine and one's personal choice to believe in God and religion. If belief in God and religion has positive outcomes like making oneself more confident and reassured and so on, that's fine. It's only when it has negative consequences including the ones that emerge from "Only MY God is true God; only my religion is worth following; and all others should be brought to this 'TRUE' path" and from the likes of ISIS, Al Quaida, Boko Haram that one has problem.

Fortunately, religions of Indian-origin like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism have been so advanced, deep and rich in their content that (a)they can stand tall without the concept of God, (b)are accepting of all other faiths and religions, (c)never had the arrogance to claim they alone are true, (d)and believe in harmonious co-existance with all other humans—irrespective of their faiths and religions—and even with all other animals, by incorporating, among other things, vegetarianism.

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
February 11, 2015
www.rkpbooks.com