I'm not a great believer in God, although I appreciate the importance of the concept. The fact that pretty much all nations had developed belief separately shows the importance of the concept. It's as crucial to human civilisation as language- which again was developed separately among different populations, but with a common purpose and with the use of speech/writing as means of communication- and much the same way, the concept of God as all powerful and all knowing, all forgiving and punishing the wicked is also mostly common across the world. However, the number of atheists/agnostics has been quickly on the rise, and although they still don't have enough confidence to proclaim themselves in public, there are several online groups and communities that are springing up. Atheism wasn't uncommon in 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and Nietzche's writings which I came across talked about how atheism was quite common in his days. In India however, the movement is very recent. Development- especially philosophical development (through books, movies and music, and not the GDP kind of development which possibly precedes it), along with scientific progress probably help the movement towards atheism. There is a society called Indian Atheists which conducts meets in different parts of the country and the meets are organised through social networking websites. Although atheism/agnosticism lacks acceptance in society, it is commonly accepted online. Communities such as those on 9gag and reddit, and even some posts on facebook these days have accepted atheism as a philosophy.
I've been talking about atheism and agnosticism by clubbing them together, though they've very different. I myself belong to a third group which does not care if God exists. It's probably closer to atheism than agnosticism, and revolves around the fact that if God is as he is spoken about in scriptures and stuff, he wouldn't hate atheists for not believing in him, for he is not an asshole who is self-obsessed. The same way most religions portray Gods as being human in physical form (in spite of millions of other species that God has allegedly created), they think of him as being human in thought as well, and having requirements such as wanting love and affection and appreciation for all his work. Which is kind of silly, really. I reckon that atheists are in general, more honest and would be preferred by God over the selfish theists who more often than not, pray for their own needs and desires. Having said that, I do love theists, and do in a way, wish that I had faith. It's something that gives great strength and courage to do things atheists may not do, and also gives a great sense of purpose to life. The Darwinian theory or classical economic theories about the purpose of life are more accurate, but less appealing to us, as humans. Although dangerous when in huge groups that hate other religions, theists are loving people who are also possibly more successful than their atheist/agnostic friends.
Coming to the topic, I started thinking today if according to religious books, whether sin can be delegated. By this what I mean is that, if there is something that is sinful and I don't want to do it, can I ask someone else to do it for me? Today afternoon someone asked me to take their 'pappad' (a kind of snack) which was about to be wasted, because she didn't like wasting food. She's a strong believer and I'm fairly sure that she doesn't want to sin. I, as always wanted to irritate her and kept saying no and making up excuses, but finally agreed, even though I did not want it and would end up wasting it myself. Giving rewards and punishments individually is not a very efficient method of management in a corporation. They are mostly given to top performing groups/teams and there may be separate, smaller incentives to top individual performers, if any. Punishments are not always done in the same fashion but I do believe that it would be more efficient. In corporations, the punishment is often not being rewarded, and thus it is naturally built into the system when rewards are given likewise.
So does God punish/reward as individually or as a whole? If not individually, is it our family or our neighbourhood, or is it earth as a whole? Do animals also get punished for their sins? Only those who've never played with pet cats or dogs would say that animals are incapable of thinking or acting with intelligence. I'm certain that even among animals, there would be a few evil ones, as is the case with us. By giving me the pappad, the girl shouldn't relieve herself of her punishment, because she is not creating any value by doing it- she's only transferring the sin. A corresponding situation in a company is where one division transfers it's losses using accounting loopholes into another. Thus in this case, we should be given our punishment as a group. But then, we interact with so many people that it's difficult even for God to constantly keep track of different groups, which keep on changing and intersect at several instances with each other.
I think it was Valmeeki in the Indian mythology, who was the hunter who killed animals to feed his family who changed his 'evil' ways when his family shamelessly told him on his face, that they wouldn't share his sin since it was he who killed the animals and not them. Dumb stories like this make people do dumb things like delegating the sin of wasting a pappad, even in this day and age. Similarly, my grandfather makes others kill insects and other creatures that get into the house, scared of sinning himself - believing strongly that sin can be delegated.
Along with the hope that God would not care about whether we believe in him or talk to him or whatever, I kind of hope that all the punishments that we get are given as a group and never individually. I don't think that anything in this world can benefit only a single person, and if someone else benefits from it even without their knowing, that is still a sin of ignorance. Even in small groups that constantly change, it is impossible to give out punishments, since others may get benefits group their sins, some time in the future. And in a very remote and connected argument, since anyone in this world has the ability to stop sinning of humanity altogether (yea right!), it is everyone's fault when someone in this world sins.
I've been talking about atheism and agnosticism by clubbing them together, though they've very different. I myself belong to a third group which does not care if God exists. It's probably closer to atheism than agnosticism, and revolves around the fact that if God is as he is spoken about in scriptures and stuff, he wouldn't hate atheists for not believing in him, for he is not an asshole who is self-obsessed. The same way most religions portray Gods as being human in physical form (in spite of millions of other species that God has allegedly created), they think of him as being human in thought as well, and having requirements such as wanting love and affection and appreciation for all his work. Which is kind of silly, really. I reckon that atheists are in general, more honest and would be preferred by God over the selfish theists who more often than not, pray for their own needs and desires. Having said that, I do love theists, and do in a way, wish that I had faith. It's something that gives great strength and courage to do things atheists may not do, and also gives a great sense of purpose to life. The Darwinian theory or classical economic theories about the purpose of life are more accurate, but less appealing to us, as humans. Although dangerous when in huge groups that hate other religions, theists are loving people who are also possibly more successful than their atheist/agnostic friends.
Coming to the topic, I started thinking today if according to religious books, whether sin can be delegated. By this what I mean is that, if there is something that is sinful and I don't want to do it, can I ask someone else to do it for me? Today afternoon someone asked me to take their 'pappad' (a kind of snack) which was about to be wasted, because she didn't like wasting food. She's a strong believer and I'm fairly sure that she doesn't want to sin. I, as always wanted to irritate her and kept saying no and making up excuses, but finally agreed, even though I did not want it and would end up wasting it myself. Giving rewards and punishments individually is not a very efficient method of management in a corporation. They are mostly given to top performing groups/teams and there may be separate, smaller incentives to top individual performers, if any. Punishments are not always done in the same fashion but I do believe that it would be more efficient. In corporations, the punishment is often not being rewarded, and thus it is naturally built into the system when rewards are given likewise.
So does God punish/reward as individually or as a whole? If not individually, is it our family or our neighbourhood, or is it earth as a whole? Do animals also get punished for their sins? Only those who've never played with pet cats or dogs would say that animals are incapable of thinking or acting with intelligence. I'm certain that even among animals, there would be a few evil ones, as is the case with us. By giving me the pappad, the girl shouldn't relieve herself of her punishment, because she is not creating any value by doing it- she's only transferring the sin. A corresponding situation in a company is where one division transfers it's losses using accounting loopholes into another. Thus in this case, we should be given our punishment as a group. But then, we interact with so many people that it's difficult even for God to constantly keep track of different groups, which keep on changing and intersect at several instances with each other.
I think it was Valmeeki in the Indian mythology, who was the hunter who killed animals to feed his family who changed his 'evil' ways when his family shamelessly told him on his face, that they wouldn't share his sin since it was he who killed the animals and not them. Dumb stories like this make people do dumb things like delegating the sin of wasting a pappad, even in this day and age. Similarly, my grandfather makes others kill insects and other creatures that get into the house, scared of sinning himself - believing strongly that sin can be delegated.
Along with the hope that God would not care about whether we believe in him or talk to him or whatever, I kind of hope that all the punishments that we get are given as a group and never individually. I don't think that anything in this world can benefit only a single person, and if someone else benefits from it even without their knowing, that is still a sin of ignorance. Even in small groups that constantly change, it is impossible to give out punishments, since others may get benefits group their sins, some time in the future. And in a very remote and connected argument, since anyone in this world has the ability to stop sinning of humanity altogether (yea right!), it is everyone's fault when someone in this world sins.
Hey, good writing.
ReplyDeleteBut I kind of disagree with a certain aspect that you've mentioned ie the punishments are given in groups. How can that be possible? If a person commits a sin like rape or murder, according to religious texts, he alone is punished on the 'judgement day'. Even if it were not given so in holy books, isn't it only FAIR that the punishment be given to the individual who has sinned rather than to the whole group associated with him? I don't think there's any logic to believe otherwise.
Also, wasting food/killing bugs were brought under the list of sins by some clever fellow who did not want food to be wasted for the obvious reasons/so that all living beings would live in harmony and not because God thinks it's 'sinful'. I am of the opinion that most such 'sins' and religious texts were devised by a bunch of very clever people so that the society would run peacefully and without much conflict. But of course, people are free to choose what they want to believe.