THE ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM
Debating Atheism and Nationalism: Spirituality
Mr. Adam Gowans Whyte writing in the “Rationalist Annual” for 1928 says the following glowing tribute to the Hindu religion.
“No one will dispute the high status of the Hindu religion. It is ancient – so ancient that Christianity is in comparison but a cult of yesterday. It has a mythology more elaborate, more fantastic, than that of any other faith. It controls the daily lives of over two hundred millions of people; and above all, its pilgrims have advanced further along the path of mysticism than the most ambitious adepts of Western religion can claim. The Hindu, in short has been a specialist in spirituality for thousands of years. By means of fasting, prayer, meditation, and other spiritual exercise he raises himself to a level of spiritual ecstasy where the things of earth are lost in the shining haze of the eternal. Even our Christian mystics, who are a kind of Upper Ten in our religious society, have a deep respect for the occult Wisdom of the East. We ought to find, therefore, in the Hindu community very plain proofs of the benefits of spiritual rule. Here is a multitude governed by the very antithesis of that “materialism” which we are constantly reminded, will curse the world when religion ceases to dominate. Let us then examine the fruits of the tree that has been flourishing for so many centuries.”
Mr. Whyte proceeds to examine our social and religious institutions which are responsible for our child widows and our “untouchables” and comes to the following remarkable conclusion:-
Hinduism “is a spiritual domination which condemns a whole people to ignorance, misery, cruelty and disease. The founders of Hinduism, guided by the light that never was on land or sea, and keeping their gaze upon the ineffable and the infinite, developed a code which controls the daily lives of every man and woman from the cradle to the funeral pyre. This code carries with it the strongest form of sanction for the multitude – a spiritual sanction; and against that invisible power the British administration, in common with the native reformer, is almost helpless. The people, believing and obeying as the faithful are expected to do, demonstrate that effects of their supernatural government with a thorough-ness which is little short of appalling.”
We do not agree with the latter conclusion of Mr. Whyte contained in the words we have italicized. Our charge against the British administration is not so much that it has drained the economic resources of the country but that it has connived at the perpetuation and accentuation of the religious thralldom of the people by adopting the policy of “religious neutrality”. Armed with the powers and the resources of government, the British administrators have been sitting with folded hands allowing priestcraft to spoliate a whole Nation. Having accepted the responsibility of governing a great country, it is idle to pretend helplessness. We consider the accusation against the “native reformer” is quite unfair. The Indian reformer has proved ineffective because he does not command political power; neither do those who have the power co-operate with him. No government which gloats on its “religious neutrality” can lead a Nation on the onward path of progress. Happily the reformer in India has ceased to look forward to government support and is already among the people trying to shake them out of their “spiritual” slumber. We heartily endorse the works of Mr. Aldous Huxley who in Jesting Pilate says:
“To my mind, spirituality is the primal curse of India and the cause of her misfortunes. A little less spirituality and the Indians would now be free – free from foreign domination and the tyranny of their own prejudices and traditions. There would be less dirt and more food”.
Revolt, 7 November 1928
Revolt Against Religion : Reason Vs. Blind Faith (Prof. Joshi)
“Modern Collegemen have revolted against the old traditions, discarded creed as a useless crutch, and find more religious satisfaction in reason than in blind faith.”
(That is the undergraduate, as Prof. Samuel Lucas Joshi depicts him in an article in the New York “Evening Post”. Professor Joshi was formerly of the University of Madras and now holds the chair in Comparative Religion at Darmouth, United States. He has had wide experience in Asia, Europe and America. After obtaining a Master of Arts degree at Columbia in 1905 he returned to India to teach and become a Professor of English Literature at Baroda college. In 1922 he received an appointment as the first Exchange Professor from India on the Carnegie Foundation to the United States which he held for two years. His parents were Brahmin converts to Christianity and had forty generations of the priesthood behind them, a fact which leads him to comment, we read in ‘The Evening Post’: “I was privileged to add to this inheritance by being educated in a Moslem College and trained in the traditions of the Christian Church”. Professor Joshi is a Hindu Christian and a member of the Anglican Church.)
Professor Joshi writes that a diversity of opinion exists among the undergraduates regarding the need of religion as being vital to modern life, but the majority of college-men, while acknowledging the need of man’s spiritual regeneration have determined never again to return to the traditional forms of Christian theology.
“They sense the need of a metaphysical and scientific background on which the superstructure of religious theory and practice should be built.”
At the end of the last academic year he asked his class on comparative religion to write papers frankly expressing their opinions on religion, and he selected some extracts as typifying the attitude of the American under-graduate toward religion today:
“If I were to set down in one sentence, my conception of God, the universe and religion in general, it would be in accordance with the more or less pantheistic view namely, the identification of God, with the universe and the laws of nature. That God would be an impartial creator impervious to prayer and sacrifice and unapproachable by bribes of any sort. In short, man’s salvation would lie solely within himself and would not be the special dispensation of any God or hierarchy of gods.
“I would subscribe to no formulated creed or dogma, guiding my life entirely within myself. I would accept no theology and attend no Church since these factors do not fit in with my scheme of life. Creed for me would take the form of working in accord with the laws of nature and my fellow man. The sociological aspect of welfare also enters in here – a utilitarian phrase, “The greatest good for the greatest number.”
Here, on the other hand, there are widely different points of view as for instance:
“‘God’ is merely a vague term for the unchanging laws of nature, and he who by prayers and sacrifices expects to interfere with these laws is surely on the highway to insanity. Perfection can be reached only by men working along with his fellows intelligently.”
“All religions are based on certain hypothetical postulates, and it is idle to sit in judgment on any as long as they bring forth the fruit of good conduct and stand the pragmatic test.”
“The Buddhist view that every man must exercise aright his free will and become the master of his own fate under the law of Karma is to me the most sensible idea of salvation ever known.”
“Know Thyself ” is the best summary of religion given by India and Greece to the world. The attainment of happiness to the fullest extent by all races should be the aim of true religion. I believe the greatest satisfactions of life do not come merely from pecuniary gain but by the due recognition of the spiritual element in man and the universe. I see nothing beyond the grave. I would like to believe in no personal God nor in the immortality of the soul.”
“If an inordinate desire to acquire wealth dominates our life we become less capable to love our neighbours as ourselves. The ethics of individual self-realisation appeal to me as a better type of religion (than) mechanical prayers in congregational worship. Truly religious men must learn to depend more on the authority of experience and reason than the authority of the Church or the Scriptures.”
“None of the Semite religions has ever appealed to me. They have no satisfactory metaphysical background so essential to the rational understanding of religion. Buddha never wasted time and energy in speculating on the nature of God, but in a pre-eminently practical way organized a religious movement which seems to appeal both to the scientists and the philosopher.”
“The Christian view that you must secure your salvation by placing your faith in the merits of the crucifixion is suggestive of mental indolence and lacks the dynamic moral energy of Buddhism, which tells every man to work out his own salvation.”
“As we are unconsciously encouraging law breaking and hypocrisy through half-baked attempts to enforce prohibition, so the ministers of churches are often forced to be preaching doctrines in which they have ceased to believe and encouraging hypocrisy. I follow Christ in regarding hypocrisy as the greatest sin.”
Revolt, 5 June 1929
What is Religion?
Apart from theoretical discussions regarding metaphysical problems, writes Dr. Phil in The Bombay Chronicle, let us examine what different typical individuals in our country, belonging to different cultural and social strata understand as the dictates of their respective religions.
A typical Hindu worker or farmer supposes that God resides in various images of metal or stone; that he lives at special places, called places of pilgrimage: that a cow is a sacred animal and that a buffalo (although it gives more and better milk) is not!; that girls ought to be married when they are eight years or even younger; that god can be bribed or coerced into yielding favours (hence the necessity of vows and offerings); that he must not touch certain people and that intermarriages between the various castes is a sin; that wearing of a tuft of hair or a sacred thread is necessary to the salvation, etc., etc.
Well, if this is his religion, is it well worth keeping it?
The same worker or farmer, it he is a Mussalman, will have other ideas about religion. He will suppose that a woman should never show her face except to her nearest relatives; that a man can marry four wives and have an unlimited number of mistresses; that he should go on continuously spitting on the ground during the month of Ramazan as even the swallowing of saliva is as sin, that a cow must be led through the streets and then killed in the name of religion; that no music be played in front of a place of worship; that drinking of alcohol is a sin; that when a few friends gather together they must eat from the same vessel irrespective of hygienic consideration etc.
I repeat, are these things worthwhile keeping?
A typical middle class Hindu will not be very much different from his uneducated brother. He will still go to temples and pray: pay half an anna to a man to make him feed his own cow and thus secure a bit of Punya (virtue – editors); he will say that god is present everywhere and immediately make plans to go to Nasik so as to be able to see him; he will say that all human beings are children of God and therefore, brothers and then in the very next moment abuse an untouchable for having come too near; he will say that man’s position depends on his character and not on his birth, and in the next moment refuse to give his support to the abolition of caste; he will believe that eating onions during four months of the year is a sin; he will believe that not wearing a sacred thread will lead straight to hell. Can anyone tell me which of these deserves the high sounding names given to religion?
Even the so called highly educated classes are not clear about what they understand under religion. Their god being all- powerful still persists in retaining misery in this world. Being all merciful, he still refuses to see that his children are not appreciating the vast benefits of famines, plagues and earthquakes. Knowing so many details about their god, these innocent children do not however, know what this god without beginning and without end was doing before he created this universe of ours: how after having foreseen what is going to happen (he might have done so, for he sees all) he did not do anything too prevent it …!
In an academical discussion about the necessity or otherwise of religion, everybody is up in arms against the opponent of religion. But when it comes to practice, that is what religion means. It means fights between touchable and untouchables, Hindus and Mussalmans, Brahmans and Non Brahmans, Arya Samajists and Sanatanists, Shias and Sunnis and what not. One religion asks its followers to keep a beard, another a tuft of hair at the back of the head and a third forbids its followers to shave or cut the hair on body, head or face. If god is present everywhere, what is the necessity of temples? And if at all they are necessary, why should they be at particular places only? Once a temple or a mosque is situated at a particular place, no matter what that place is required for it cannot be removed. Thus in most Indian cities, religion is serving as a traffic obstructor as a spoiler of natural beauty, as an opponent of public good.
Religion as practiced is poisoning our public life in India and it is high time that all leaders unite in condemning these practices. If at all India is to get freedom. It cannot expect to live a life behind closed doors. It must come out before the world and live out its life like every other nation. And while other people are discussing birth control, divorce, free love, socialism and world brotherhood, we are holding our “Catholic” medical congress, “Muslim” educational conferences and “All India” Santa Cruz conferences of people wearing white coats and black caps.
If at all anybody wants religion, it should be a private affair of his own and it would be a crime to bring it out of his doors.
When shall we begin to see that?
Revolt, 23 June 1929
What Will You Put In Its Place?
Next to the question “Who made everything?” the one oftenest hurled by religionists against whoever undertakes to convince them of the falsity of their beliefs is “What will you put in its place?” An answer satisfactory to a rational person is easily given, but it seems almost impossible to silence a believer who wants a substitute for that which gives him comfort, as he has been taught to affirm, even though he may be virtually forced to concede that observed facts are against his belief.
Straightforward explanations of the truth of the situation, humorous illustrations of the issues involved, and sarcastic treatment of the fallacy at the back of the question should all be employed in replying to this old objection. Should they fail to effect upon the questioner they will most likely have an influence, when used before an audience, upon open-minded seekers after truth. If used in argument with the opponent only, one may escape boredom somewhat by noting his reactions to various replies.
The man who asks for a substitute should be informed that the scientific facts disproving supernaturalism may themselves be considered a sufficient exchange for the old false belief. Handling the matter from a slightly different angle, the anti-religionist may point out that when ideas become obsolescent, it is not necessary that something be given instead.
The following replies are appropriate:
When a physician cures a man of disease, he does not give him another disease. If the opponent counters by saying that the physician gives the man health instead, the reply should be that the anti-religionists merely seek to the restore people to reason. The words of Voltaire are to the point. “What! I rescue you from beast that is about to devour you, and you ask me what I will give you in its place”.
If the champion of religion lives in a large city, he should be referred to the classified telephone directory, where under the heading ‘wreckers’ he will find listed the names of individuals and concerns engaged exclusively in tearing down condemned buildings. The system of thought known as religion has been condemned by the conscience of the majority of educated, civilized persons and must be removed; nor is it necessary that the wrecker should consider what is to be put in its place. It is enough that the structure has been condemned. Before a new one can be erected, the old must be demolished.
Should the religionist then restate his objection, as he is very likely to do, by accusing his would-be-emancipator of being ‘purely destructive’, it would be well to inquire of him why he does not launch a campaign against wrecking companies. The analogy is perfect, but the emotionally warped minds of the Faithful are so imperfect and in general so biased against even the words ‘destructive’ and ‘tearing down’ and prejudiced in favor of ‘constructive’ and similar terms, that frequently the introduction of the illustration of wrecking seems to produce an effect opposite to the one intended. Religions are ruled by emotion chiefly. The connotations of a word have more weight with them than has its denotation. Not the strict meaning but the associations impress them more. Whoever in interested in ridding the world of religious superstition should always have ready replies to the stock objections of the opposition. It is suggested that anti-religionists cut out and keep the replies given above and add to them from time to time, so that they will never be at a loss how to reply to what will you put in its place?
Revolt, 28 July 1929
Why Preach Atheism?
I
An esteemed correspondent writes to us: “I have seen in ‘The Revolt’ continuous references to favour atheism and ridiculous descriptions of God, and have wondered how far, this can be useful to the movement which you have so dear to heart”.
This doubt has been raised on various occasions by many of our friends, some of whom are even our co-workers. We are therefore bound to tell them candidly that we are not quite unaware of the probable effects that would be produced by the rational writing that are published in our journal. As a matter of fact we realize it would be a vain pursuit to unnecessarily launch a campaign against god. Nor is it our aim to waste the precious life of humanity in disputing over the existence of god. Our correspondent rightly doubts the usefulness of atheism in the propagation of our movement. Aspects of social reconstruction or social revolution, to put it more accurately have been dwelt upon in the past by many well-wishers of our country from the days of that illustrious reformer Ramanuj down to Swami Vivekananda and a host of others before and after, the task of reforming our society has been attempted not with any signal success. It was due to what? Not to the want of sincerity or capacity in them. For, not one of those ardent reformers lacked in any of the qualities that are necessary for taking up the work of reform. It is hard to find a better worker than Gokhale, a greater enthusiast than Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, a cleverer man than Ram Mohan Roy or a nobler soul than Swami Vivekananda. If these reformers have failed to produce any lasting effect on our society it is due to their fearful attitude towards the roots of opposition. They laid the axe at the branch, instead of at the root of evil.
There is no need to inform our correspondent that the real enemy of social reform is orthodoxy. The correspondent seems to sympathise with all other aspects of our movement except those which relate to god.He belongs to a group of workers which is out to destroy caste root and branch. He proposes to achieve this end by encouraging inter caste marriages and inter dining.These two are objected to by orthodoxy, which is in turn backed up by religion. When the orthodox sections of our country raise their alarm from their platform of religion, we are naturally led to place our hands at their very foundation. When we and our correspondent try to efface the sin of untouchablity, the privileged sections of the land quote religion in their favour. If we attack religion they take shelter under god and frighten us with hell-fire. God, religion and society are so intermingled. God is the centre pole which stands supported by strings of religion, customs, and superstitions tied round it. When once we begin to rub our commonsense against the strings it is no wonder they give way. And then naturally the pole shakes, but our intention is not to pull down the pole.
Many obstacles are thrown on our way in our onward march to the full realization of our ideal. Among such obstacles are god and religion. Reformers of the past feared to face either of these, because they dreaded to revolutionize the minds of the people. But we care more for our achievement than the sacredness of names attached to our obstacles. That is why we have decided to make the people think and think patiently for themselves. Unless the people cultivate a rational method of thinking there is no possibility of achieving any fruitful results. When once the people begin to think for themselves then there is the sight of progress. The conception of god does not appeal to rational mind. All reformers should be fearless if they should set humanity right. If they should be fearless they must necessarily be free thinkers. And all freethinkers without exception are lovers of humanity. We know full well that the conception of god very much stands on the way of a fearless approach towards social and religions reform. “If man cannot be reasoned out of a thing he must be ridiculed out of it”. Our references in favour of atheism, are therefore made with a view to set the people thinking and not to wound the tender susceptibilities of the theists. We shall examine other aspects of our correspondent’s doubts in our next article.
II
In our last article we pointed out the inseparable connection between god, religion and custom. Here we shall attempt to clear our correspondent’s doubt whether such …references can be of any use in the propagation of our movement. We think it is needless to point out that “god” has been the creation of human mind, just as all religions dead and living were created by man. The very existence of crores of gods in India with their wives, concubines and children, go to prove the truth of the above statement. Religions come and religions go. Mankind is neither sorry for it, nor the worse or it. Similarly the gods. The conception of god has not only subdued man’s power of thinking but has also adversely affected his material prosperity. It is why that profound thinker, John Stuart Mill remarked, that “god is a word not to express our ideas, but the want to them”
In India especially “God” and fatalism have crushed man’s progress and are playing untold havoc in our society. To this may be ascribed the chief cause of the social and economical degeneration of our country. Reformed religions have tried on various occasions to right the many wrongs India was suffering from. Many have miserably failed, while many others disappeared themselves. Many an onslaught was made on Varnashrama Dharma, the bedrock of Hinduism, but in vain.
Religions, major and minor, associations big and small, Sangams old and new have all failed in reforming Hinduism. The reason was their fear to approach the desirability of the conception of god, which is so inextricably connected with society and its customs. The one man who did this was that venerable founder of Buddhism. Buddha could not have achieved that which he did, had he not boldly set at naught the conception of god. It was indeed a wise thing that Buddha first convinced his people of the “Let alone” theory of god before he set about his work of destroying caste. We want to know what our correspondent would say if our opponents were to cite the “holy” texts (supposed to be written by god or his messengers) in favour of caste system? We are seeing everyday how the Sanatanists and other privileged classes quote “god” or godliness in their favour and obstruct the… work of the reformers. Malavias quote “god” in favour of caste just as Ramachandras and Satyamurtis quote god in favour of child marriage and Devadasi institution. Naturally the illiterate masses of the country get bewildered when the devil quotes the scripture. Traders on god have multiplied. Shams in the name of the “Almighty” are increasing. Knavery in the name of supernaturalism is improving, “God” has done enough of ruin in the minds of our people. Is it not time for us to explain to our people that atheists and atheistic countries are none the worse for their disbelief in god? – nay, even better off than all other countries which are hanging on the tender string of god?
Lord Buddha the greatest and the most successful of the reformers has left us this amount of truth, that progress cannot be dreamt of unless humanity is purged out of the conception of god. “God” has interfered too much on our daily life and it is no wonder charlatans make use of it. It is easier to get rid of “god” than charlatans. We are sure our correspondent in his work of removing caste iniquity will come to realise, one day or the other, the necessity of approaching the question of god, even as our Lord Buddha did.
Revolt, 4 and 11 August 1929
The Awakening Giant (By E. W. Fliant, New Zealand) (1)
Far, far, away in the dim recesses of prehistoric ages we see and divine slow stirrings of the human intellect and the efforts of humans to more comfortably adapt themselves to the world in which they found themselves. But this slow development of intellect carried with it a drawback which spread blight over the race for many centuries for as man learned to take note of the world and the wonders therein, he also learned to fear that which he so imperfectly understood. Coincident with this there arose out of the same rudiments of knowledge a realization on the part of some men that those fears, hopes and strivings of men could be used to benefit those who might be crafty and unscrupulous enough to make use of it. So there arose a priesthood battening upon man’s ignorance and fears and with certain spasmodic outbursts through the ages, which the same priesthood has killed promptly in a more or less violent manner, this is the condition of man to this day.
Rome and more particularly Greece in our own time comparatively speaking, made steps forward in this respect but man’s greatest enemy once more gained the upper hand and smothered these bright beginnings to a scientific and rational world. Down again settled the pall and man’s noble efforts disappeared in a pool of blood and fire not to reappear till yesterday. Europe then gave rise to a skeptical spirit born of and allied to science which of itself was a legacy of that Grecian development before mentioned. Slowly painfully and in the face of determined opposition mankind gradually fought the good fight for “the best of all causes” today in our knowledge, education and comparative comfort and well-being we reap the fruits of these courageous efforts and it would be and is nothing more or less than treachery to their ideals and memory to shirk the fight or to slack in its prosecution.
The battle today is of course vastly different from that which our forefathers waged with their primitive weapons though we have as a result of their pioneer efforts an accumulation of knowledge which puts an altogether different complexion on the probable fortunes of the day, never before did such an array of fact and reason assail the world of the priest. Ideas fearfully held and arising out of half baked conceptions of the universe just little better than those of the orthodox could not be expected to stand long against the craft of a powerful priesthood, but there is one thing we possess today, which is absolutely deadly in its effects upon our traditional enemies. No theological conception of the universe or dogmatic evasion of a rational explanation there of with all its “clothed nonsense” can withstand the cold clear light of reason or knowledge. As those deadly rays have been invented which wither and destroy anything upon which they fall, so knowledge blights and destroys the festering mass of priest conceived his (sic) when directed against it. The searchlight of reason illuminates the darkness and destroys fraud wherever found and so the days of the priest are numbered.
So it is that the splendid movement which enlightened Indians has started for the emancipation of their country from the thralldom of superstition bids fair to go on and on to its logical and desirable finality. Had the movement arisen, supposing that to be possible, in another age there would have been small chance of such efforts surviving the withering blasts, physical and vocal of the established priesthood? Today the dice is loaded against the forces of superstition and though we may witness varied fortunes for a time there can be no question of the ultimate victory by reason.
In no country in the world is the crying need of reform more urgent and nowhere will the fight prove harder than in India. This will be an added incentive to those stalwart spirits who are now doing the pioneering work in this mighty movement of liberation. No poor words suffice to describe and praise the spirit which animates those who lab our so unselfishly to liberate their fellow countrymen and country women from the strong-hold of organized superstition. Theirs is a work, an ideal and an endeavor which would do honors to the mighty mythical Gods of antiquity and when their valiant efforts are at last crowned with success, as they will eventually be, there will be no honour too high to do them justice while the greatest and most appropriate memorial to their greatness will be – a free enlightened and happy India.
Revolt, 15 September 1929
Persecutions by Clergymen (By R. Viswanathan)
The despair rising from the lack of strength to encounter the secrets of Nature is the basis of the belief in God and idol worship. Religious movements are collections of the notions created by the mental power of the rude and uncivilized people of times immemorial to make up for the inability of their minds to get into the secrets of the wonders performed by Nature. Therefore religions wholly depend upon the ignorance and superstitions of mankind. To administer those religions are the clergymen. So the existence of the mighty power of clergymen over mankind depends upon their religions, which hang down from the belief in God, the basis of ignorance and superstition of the rude and wild men of ancient world. It shows how strongly clergymen stand in the way of knowledge or in other words, how greatly they try to destroy the building of scientists, whose unconquerable minds are always ready to take up the challenges which Nature holds out.
The persecutions of scientists by clergymen in the middle ages were extremely severe. Even the use of pen, ink or paper was prohibited by them. The clergymen, who were, as a rule steeped in orthodox conservative principles, extremely trembled of the fear, that new inventions shattered the faith of the people in God and Temple and shook the religious foundations. Roger Bacon who was the first man to chalk out a path, that by observation and experiment, striking discoveries could be made and the laws governing the universe be laid down, fell a victim to the base and mighty opposition of clergymen. In 1928 he was summoned before the clergy and accused of setting forth doctrines of ‘suspicious novelties’ and was condemned to a severe term of imprisonment for fourteen years.
So also Galileo, who invented the telescope and conducted several new experiments in astronomy was accused of having tried to undermine the authority of the Bible and imprisoned. Within the walls of prison he died, deaf, blind and broken hearted on hearing the news of his only daughter’s death. Without a monument he was buried; but today Florence keeps up his memory by the erection of a monument. Thus following a policy of foolish obstinacy, two of the noblest men were thrown into prison. But the rash clergymen themselves realized later that their hopes, that by confining such men as Bacon and Galileo within the prison walls, science in its childhood could be crushed, were futile.
The development of medical science was a great stroke to the power of clergymen. Before the medical science was strong enough to resist all its enemies, even a whole nation, attacked by terrible diseases, like the plague or smallpox or malaria was considered to be only the God’s punishment on that nation. The doctors who tried to find remedy for those diseases were working against God and therefore they were sinners. According to religious doctrines which ran even in the veins of human beings, what a diseased must do was to give enormous sums of money to temples, in the name of the worship of God, where these clergymen dwelt, call one of them and pray to God in his presence. Several nations have perished like that in the middle ages. Naturalists were equally troubled by the clergy as scientists or medical men. They even threatened to kill Darwin when he began to teach his students the origin of mankind from monkeys which were quite against what was written in the Bible, that God created men.
The great wars that were fought – the pools of human blood that were shed – that succeeded the Protestant Revolt, in Europe were all due to the persecution of peoples and rulers by the clergymen. A great storm of fights in and outside every country in Europe swept over for a long time when people began to protest against the Catholic clergymen, who exercised such unbearable powers over the poor people that they were almost suffocated within the walls of the religious doctrines of those times.
Having written so far, taking instances from the history of other countries, it is my duty to write something about our mother country. Some people, now-a-days seeing that their motherland India is so backward from the rank of the civilized countries, have begun to boast themselves that India in the past was the greatest country in the whole world. It was the greatest, I admit but the greatness depended more upon the influence exercised by clergymen (Brahmins) over the people and rulers than upon civilizations. This fact we can make out by reading from history, the invasions of Mahmud of Gazni and other rulers of Afghanistan and Baluchistan and by our own eyes, visiting the remaining old temples in several parts of India. Temple is the fortress of clergymen, the idol in it is the arrow-headed hook with which they catch the ignorant people of the country and bring them under their influence, then without any knowledge of the people of the land, they plunder the whole country.
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, one of the supposed leaders of India, worships Rama the son of king Dasarata of Ayodhya as the avatar of God. Rama was only a puppet in the hands of the clergymen of his country and when they asked him to kill the poor innocent ‘Sudra’ for meditating in holy thoughts, he at once went and killed him in cold blood. Many of such merciless and inhuman actions performed by Rama to please the clergymen can be pointed out.
There were the influences exercised over the rulers by the clergymen of this country. Before the advent of English education in India none rose in revolt against those cruel clergymen, as people in other countries did because the majority of the population on whom depended the practical strength of the country, was from ancient times, crushed under the feet of the clergymen. They were driven into the jungles as depressed classes, prohibiting even a glare of education to get into their midst. On those days a ‘Sudra’ who happened to hear the songs of the Hindu Vedas were punished and molten lead was poured into his ears. If he happened to read the Vedas his tongue was cut off. Thus we see that before the dawn of Western civilization people had to suffer such severe punishments for seeking knowledge.
Young brothers and sisters! Within you lie asleep great powers to conquer the universe. Wake them all. Revolt against all the forces that caged you so long. Abolish the cruel and debasing caste system. Be under the firm belief, that by destroying priesthood you are not becoming a sinner but saviour of mankind. Convert all the temples into workshops. Get freedom to think and to act and rush yourself into the world’s broad field of battle.
Revolt, 29 September 1929
Religion in Danger
The tragic effects of mixing up religion with politics and other secular activities are being keenly realized by most thinking persons in India. Zealous fanatics and misguided communalists are flourishing here with the senseless bogey of ‘Hinduism in Danger’ and ‘Islam in Danger’. This mediaeval and retrograde mentality seems by no means confined to India. America which boasts of being the country of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ now finds itself with more than one skeleton in its cupboard. No less than three Amercian States – Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas – have prohibited the teaching of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution in Schools and Colleges on the ground that it conflicts with the scheme of the Bible.
The famous Monkeyville trial in Tennessee (the trail that followed when the Butler act that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools was challenged – editors) created something of an international sensation. The world was intensely amused. But since then two other American States have followed suit and frantic attempts are being made to induce 19 other States to capitulate to reaction. This has naturally alarmed the progressive elements of America and organizations like the Science League of America, the American Association of University Professors and the Civil Liberties Union have started a vigorous counter propaganda.
The state of Arkansas decided upon the anti evolution law after a general plebiscite under the initiative and referendum system which prevails there. By it any teacher who teaches the evolutionary theory is to be promptly expelled and he has further to pay a fine of $ 500. Similarly if any member of any text book commission allows or connives at the teaching of the Darwinian Theory “to the students of any public School and College or the State University, including the Medical School”, he makes himself liable to alike penalty.
How serious the result of this measure are likely to be, can be seen from the declaration of J. P. Womack, State Superintendent of Public Schools, that the act would automatically ban ‘The Encyclopedia Britannica’, the ‘Webster’s Dictionary’ and other works of reference which define the theory of evolution as the onward march of human beings from a lower order of animals. Further almost all the Sciences proceed on the basis of the theory of evolution. This would mean that the modern scientific treaties particularly the textbooks in Astronomy, Biology, Zoology, Botany, Anthropology and other sciences will have to be so ADAPTED or ALTERED as to bring them into agreement with the “dogmas” of fundamentalism. In other words says Maynard Shipley, President of the Science League of America, “they (the text books) will be reduced to the cultural level of ancient Babylonia, Chaldea and Cyria, thus carrying the pupils to a remote pre-scientific age and thereby repudiating the scientific advancements of modern times”.
The scientists, however are not going to take this outrageous measure lying down. Dr. Frank Vinsonhaler, Dean of the Medical School of the University of Arkansas caused a sensation by publicly declaring that this measure will be ignored by the medical department of the University. To leave the teaching of evolution out of the Medical School would wreck it and therefore the faculty will continue to teach as heretofore, regardless of the law.
The cry of ‘Religion in Danger’ which is raised everywhere to prop up decaying dogmas and discredited superstition, should be squarely met by every thinking person. How much mischief it has already done, specially in our own country is well-known. Drastic steps must be taken to fight the pernicious activities of reactionaries and nothing will be found so efficacious to the end as the creation of a radical and modernist ideology in the country. We must also learn thoroughly the often repeated but as often forgotten lesson of keeping religion out of secular matters. For it is not Religion that is in danger, so much as Progress.
– Young Liberator.
Revolt, 29 September 1929
Rationalism in India (By the Editor)
The Bombay Chronicle, in its issue of 30th October writes:
“It is impossible for observant men to shut their eyes any longer to the advent of a new movement in the realm of thought in India which may generally be called the Rationalistic movement. It is a tendency, for the present confined to a few, to examine every social or religious belief or usage in the light of pure Reason and to reject every belief which is repugnant to the dictates of reason even if it be sanctioned by ancient texts or custom. The tendency is not altogether new in India. Not to go far back in history the rise of the Brahma Samaj was indicative of freedom of thought on religion and of increasing reliance on Reason rather than on Dogma. Modern education, the progress of science, and several other forces strengthened the tendency. Apart from events in Turkey and other Asiatic countries, Mahatma Gandhi’s message of truth as the final arbiter and his own relentless pursuit of Truth, unhindered by any dogma or custom have created a ferment in the Indian mind, the full effect of which are too subtle to be now measured. But the unanimous acceptance by the Congress of the campaign against the custom of untouchability registered a phenomenal change in the mind of the cultured Indian. The widespread cry for the abolition of Caste, another time-honored institution, and the cordial response given to the Sarda Bill despite the force of custom and of scriptural texts against it, are other signs of the change. A few months ago, we heard of a magazine called the “Rationalist,” started in the Punjab to preach pure Rationalism. Shortly after was started in Bengal, “the League against Mullaism” to fight fanaticism and superstition prevalent among many Muslim Mulla. In Madras similar work is being carried on by a weekly paper called the “Revolt”. Apart from the merits of the views propagated by it, this paper does exhibit the spirit of revolt against custom or dogmas that do not appeal to Reason.”
Coming nearer home, we are ourselves astonished at the very radical views expressed by our correspondents on vital questions of religion. They certainly betoken a real ferment in the minds of our educated men and a strong desire to appeal from authority to Reason. The many correspondents who have written on the subject of “Teachings of Zoaraster” have covered a much wider ground than suggested by the subject itself. Most of them, including Parses, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims, have displayed a clear rationalistic bias. The specific question which has agitated their minds is the present degraded position of priests. Some suggest that the priestly class must be radically reformed and others that the class must go altogether. If priests cannot be got to do anything better than go through or lead men through rites and ceremonies and mechanically say ill-understood vicarious prayers for consideration, few will regret their going. But it may be urged by some that society needs true ministrants to the soul as it needs doctors and teachers to minister to the body and the mind.
Society sorely needs religious missionaries like Swami Vivekanand or Swami Rama Tirth. Not all missionaries can rise to their stature but many can follow the lines chalked out by them. In painful contrast with such missionaries is the average priest of the present day who is himself superstitious and ignorant and feeds the superstition of the people whom he serves. Priests like these are a drag on society and naturally bring their order into contempt. The evil that they do is aggravated where they constitute themselves into a caste and demand reverence by virtue of their belonging to the Caste. The whole institution of Priesthood, if it is to exist at all – and we see no reason why it should continue to exist – needs an urgent and drastic reform.
It must be noted at the same time that the superstition among priests is to a large extent only the reflection of the superstition among the people who support them. So long as people are content with mere rites and ceremonies as a substitute for religion, priests will not want to accommodate them. So long as people think that there is more merit in giving gifts to gods and goddesses than in building schools and hospitals, there will not be a dearth of persons to receive the gifts on behalf of the gods and goddesses. We therefore, welcome the advent of a strong reaction against superstition that we noted above. We also welcome Mr. Nariman’s idea of forming an Association “the prime objective of which shall be the annihilation of all those ruinous customs and manners, of those rites and rituals which in the name of God have retarded the onward march of man.”
Revolt, 10 November 1929
Notes
- This article was specifically written for Revolt by the author who was a regular subscriber to the weekly.
