This is the second part of a two part article "God Religion and Me". Here I will discuss my opinion about the concept of god. In the first part of this article I had discussed my opinion on religion. The first part is "God Religion and Me: Religion For Me"

But before I would like to say "Anything that I mention here are solely my own opinion. I am not here to prove anything to anyone." I believe in “Live and let Live”, believe in what you want to, let others do the same and at the same time respect others believe too. It is very simple, “Give respect, Take respect”. Even the example I give here will be just to prove my point and not to question anyone or hurt anyone. Accept it or reject it but please don’t get hurt.

Here comes the controversial topic and let me begin by declaring that I do not believe in God. I know my argument on religion in my previous Hub (God Religion and Me: Religion For Me) would have given you an impression that I believe in religion. Yes you are correct but then you would say how come I believe in religion but not in God? My answer to this is very simple, as already mentioned, for me religion and God stands different. I do not confuse between them. For me they are completely separate entity.

The set of protocols defined in the religion I follow makes me feel that I am leading the life I want to lead. It makes me feel satisfied but that does not mean I do not respect other religion and others faith. I give the same respect to other religion just like the way I respect the religion I follow. Having said all these, I would also like to clarify that I am not the strict follower of my religion i.e. I am not the blind follower. I follow only those protocols that make sense to me. Then what is it that I do not believe in God? Why am I trying to be different? Is it that I am trying to act smart? Well I am not trying to act smart but have some logical reason to believe the way I believe and that is what I am going to explain.

I know this will raise lot of eyebrows but this is what is true about me. Some of the reason here may seem silly but it is worth for me and one of the simplest reason is, I do not follow something just because other do it or because I was taught to do so unless I find it convincing myself.

I don’t follow others: Most of the times I look for some logical or scientific proof but even if something does not have a proof and yet is able to convince me or if I can feel about it then I will agree with it. But in case of the concept of God, unfortunately I must say, nothing has come across me or nothing has happened to me. It is not that I have decided to be a non-believer no matter what.

There definitely must be something that everyone in the world believes in; belief of so many people cannot be fake and superstition. People say, when they pray they feel the peace inside, they feel more energized and that’s what makes them believe in God. Different people will have different experience to believe in God. Knowing so many people believe in God (my parents and siblings included) it gives me a strong feel at times that there must definitely be some superpower, some Supreme Being who is supposed to be followed but I am not the kind of person who will follow and will believe in something just because other are doing so. Trust me I want to feel what others feel but honestly speaking, I have never come across a proof of such Supreme Being or have come across anything that will make me feel its presence. Who knows the day I actually feel it, I may become one of the most committed follower but at present, I am a strict non-believer.

Please don’t force me: I just don’t understand what happens to people when I say that I don’t believe in God. First they will raise an eyebrow and when their temper cools down they will sympathize with me and then will get hell bent upon proving their point to me. Why? What is the problem? Why am I supposed to be looked down upon or be a subject of hate? Is it just because I don’t believe in what they do? I never asked anyone not to believe and went on proving that. I never hated anyone for being a believer. My family is a believer, all of my friends are believers but I love them all and give due respect to their faith. Why can’t we live and let others live their life on their own terms?

Considering people who believe in the Supreme Being are in real majority (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism) there should have been peace and harmony around the world like never before. Everyone says they believe in the ONE but it is really irony that the major cause of conflict and killing around the world is this ONE. Consider two different individuals both of whom believe in the ONE but they still fight. Why? Because though they believe in the Supreme Being but they differ in the way they follow the ONE. I just don’t get the logic. Is this what we become when we start believing? If it is so then I am better off being a non-believer and love all.

To my previous argument someone may say, “You have considered only the negative points. It depends on an individual how to interpret a faith. If he/she kills in the name of faith then it shows his/her character and not the character of the faith he/she is following.” I would have accepted it had there been some isolated incidence but I see majority or almost all of them are believers. And yes when I say that most of the believers are the one who are involved in killing and spreading haterate around the world, I don't need to give any example to prove my point. Follow the news! This is one of my other simple reasons for not believing.

I need proof: As I said before, I am open to this concept and so am searching for a solid reason to believe in it but if someone wants to push it on me then I bluntly ask, “What is the proof?” And it is really surprising that this question annoys some people amazingly, “Big headed people like you don’t need to be proved anything. God does not need followers like you. You are no one to be proved anything”. I say why not, if it so important to follow God then why not come and prove that to me. I am not saying God need to come to prove, it could be anyone doing that. If presence of God is so strong then why is it so difficult to prove it? Generally people believe in what they are taught and told but I am not like that, I am bit different and don’t want to go for blind believe. So what? Is it fair to leave me out just because I ask for proof? Don’t you think it is like forcing someone for something? “No proof will be given, either believe in it or stay out of league”.

But not all are rude to me. Some say “Man you’ve got to believe in it and only then you will be able to feel the Almighty’s presence.” Believe? Believe in what? You are not able to give me any idea about it and ask me to believe in it. What shall I think about it as? Think about ….. nothing and then believe in so that I will be able to feel it i.e. feel nothing? Why does this concept seem so confusing to me? Is it that I have started asking questions about it?

Then comes another analogy, pretty interesting one but not enough to convince me. I was told once, not everything can be made to be seen or touched to prove its existence. It is just like emotion, beauty, energy etc none of them could be touched but they do exist and their existence is proved because we can feel them. We cannot see electrons moving in a wire but we know that it is happening because of the effect it produce, it can produce light. This concept of God is just like that.

I was actually impressed by the above analogy but then I had two queries. First, I agree that everything cannot be seen or touched, could be felt instead. I am ready for that too. Even if I could feel, I will believe in God but trust me till date I have not felt anything that could make me realise that it is that special feeling that comes when you feel the ONE. For anything that I have ever felt, I knew what it is. When I feel sad or happy I know what is the reason behind and I am sure it is hasn’t been God as the reason behind.

My second question is related to the explanation about to the movement of electrons. Today when we see light bulb glow we know the moving electrons are the one responsible for it. Had the same thing happened centuries back when people had no idea about electrons and protons etc, people would have most probably reasoned it as God’s miracle. If people would have seen something flying back then, it would have called God as there were no concept of aeroplane in those days.

Therefore, shall I conclude that we have developed a habit of naming anything that we do not understand as God? Centuries back people did not understood electricity and would have named it God. Today we know it is electricity and hence it is God no more instead there so many things that we have not yet understood in world today and so they must be God now. Similarly tomorrow when man will have understanding of those unknown things today, those things too will loose its identity as God or God’s work and the definition of God will change yet again to something that could not be understood then. Is it that we don’t want to understand God or there do not exist anything as such at all and it is just a hoopla created by our forefathers and we agree to live with it?

I have been in constant search for the answer of my question. Until now, whatever I have discussed or argued, was based completely on my own concept or experience. However, to know more about my thinking and how well can I justify my points based on some scientific and research based facts and data, I decided to do some reading of research works done by some big philosophers around the world. I will mention about some findings that I have made but that is not the end. I am still in the process of doing it and as I progress in my quest, I will keep writing about it. For now, here is what I have found till date.

Bertrand Russell: Bertrand Russell the famous mathematician and philosopher in his 1918 lectures on logical atomism stated that everything that we see or know are idea that are made up of logical constructions. He maintained that all hypothesis and idea could be tested through the weight of evidence. A physical object can be defined as an idea that can give us the sensation of feel and touch while metaphysical concept could be defined as something that is completely abstract but could be established based on proper facts and evidence. Hence he had a strong view that anything that could not be verified based on scientific process could not be held true. I too strongly agree with this fact and since the concept of God has not been proved scientifically, it becomes very difficult for me to accept it.

Counter balancing the Russell’s concept of scientific proof by David Hume and Karl Popper: As I kept reading further I came across a concept by David Hume that questions the very foundation of scientific methods to prove any theory. Before I could just say that I will believe in God only if the concept could be scientifically proved, I need to be sure if the present scientific method is at all capable of proving it. Hence I kept reading!

Hume argues, just because a scientific procedure has proved at particular theory right that does not mean the theory is actually correct. There could be a number of outcome that a theory can produce as suggested by Karl Popper. According to Karl it is not possible to test any theory scientifically because there could be a number of situation in which the theory could be tested under. No matter how rigorously a theory be test scientifically, there can always be a scenario where it could be falsified. This argument clearly raises a question mark on the efficiency of scientific method that is used to prove other theories correct.

Although above concept puts some question mark on the scientific proofs but it does not rule the scientific methods completely out. Karl says “It should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognise that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory”.

A careful reading will tell us that nowhere did he speak about the scientific testing method is wrong. He spaeks about the theory or the concepts that is under the consideration of scientific testing. Hence, we can safely say that even though a scientific test may not be covering all the scope and all parameters to prove a theory correct or incorrect but at least it is not wrong. Hence I can still rely on scientific proof for the existence of God although I agree it may not be able to prove the concept completely but at least give some idea. Even a small convincing proof to me will go long way for me!

Even though Hume raised a strong question on the authenticity of scientific proof, he too believed in laying down theories based on strong foundation of experience and observation. Hume maintains that we “must cultivate true metaphysics with some care, in order to destroy the false and adulterate”. However, when he explains what “true metaphysics” is, it turns out not to be metaphysics at all.

Hume’s missing blue shade:

Here is a good experiment carried out by Hume. He asks us to consider “a person to have enjoyed his sight for thirty years, and to have become perfectly well acquainted with colours of all kinds, excepting one particular shade of blue. Let all the different shades of that colour, except that single one, be placed before him, descending gradually from the deepest to the lightest. When the person comes to that missing shade, he/she observes that there is a greater distance in that place betwixt the contiguous colours, than in any other. Now the question is whether it is possible for him, from his own imagination, to supply this deficiency, and raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade, though’ it had never been conveyed to him by his senses?” Some may answer this question as yes while some may say no. However, this is not the question that I want the answer from you. What I want to say is, a believer will maintain that just because the person has not experienced blue colour does not mean the colour does not exists. Similarly just because you don’t know about the existence of God, it does not mean God does not exist. My counter argument will be; The day the person comes to know about that blue shade, he will attach a definition to it and will start believing in it. I am just like that, I will believe only after I come to know about it.

I would like to stress again. These were completely my views and it was not at all targeted to hurt anyone. Moreover if you have noticed, you will find that I have not mentioned about any religion or faith in particular. As I said respect all and love all.

Liked this article? Don't forget to rate it "Thumbs Up" and give your comments below !