WHY ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY A SOLUTION

"THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. SO STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE." If you have been reading the papers recently or if you have been to London of late, you would have probably noticed this. This is the newest avatar of the atheist campaign that is gaining popularity globally. The fact that the campaign was able to raise £140,000, £135,000 more than what its founders originally intended, while human welfare organisations are struggling for funds, speaks for itself.

Some of the recent events that have taken place in the name of religion and God are certainly very disturbing and undermine the very aim of the faith. These events lend credit to the claim that the path of religion leads to destruction of self and others around, as some have come to say.

This brings us to the big question. Is atheism the solution? Will atheism show us the way to end this madness? Perhaps not. Instead of trying to prove why religion is the best, I'll demonstrate why atheism is not exactly the best solution.

Religion has been the founding stone of civilization. It set the basis on which man could congregate and build empires that did not fall apart at the touch of the hat. In fact, religion was initially no more than a set of beliefs and rules strung together, but it kept communities from disintegrating, providing a platform to settle internal disputes and maintain order in the community. Ancient Egypt or Rome can be cited as good illustrations to the role that religion played in shaping them as two of the most powerful civilizations of the ancient world. In fact every civilization worth its annals in history had its strong religious background that made it what it was.

Historically religion has been cornerstone of civilization, but one might ask if it holds relevance in the modern world. It certainly does. We might have come a long way from hunting and foraging for food but Man's gut instincts remain the same and it takes little for him to return to his ancient unsavory ways. Don't we have more lot more gun totting tots? Where's the world going? As the world embraces atheism more, it has also been taking a step back in terms of morals. Of course, it might be purely co-incidental. But then again it may not.

The main reason that we have been able to come so far through all the hard times is this religion. Think of a world where religion as a concept did not exist. At least in the case of the old world anarchy would have been the ruler and mankind would have destroyed itself a hundred times over by now.

Proponents of atheism argue that religion has been and still is the root cause of many a bloody conflict. Think Crusades, they say. Think about the recent spate of terror attacks, they say. However, religion in itself is rarely the cause for violence. The politics behind it is the culprit. People in power abuse their ability to reach out to the masses, use religion as a tool and bend the public to do their bidding, all because of selfish gains or to enforce their idea of a perfect world.

The Babri Masjid problem, in spite of it having religious roots, did not flare up because of the religion itself. Some people high up in the political and religious order perhaps decided that it was time garner some publicity or perhaps they simply did not like the way things were now. There was a lot of political lobbying on either camp on the issue and it ended with one of the bloodiest religious riots in the country in recent times.

Now the next question will be – If not for religion, then these so called selfish people in authority would not have been able to charm the people to do their dirty work, will they? If religion did not exist, then there will surely be something else to fight about – competition to be the best, clash of ideologies that have nothing religious about them, dispute of materialistic possession, etc. Bickering and quarrelling is in our genes. There will always be something to politicize and ultimately result in strife. Even trivial things as an untimely sneeze would be enough to cause uproar.

All major religions in the world are built around a code of ethics, which is aimed at showing the individual how to live in harmony with the society while working for the betterment of self and the society as a whole. Each religion openly condemns acts of mal-intent bound to cause harm to fellow human beings even though the measures used to curb those acts and enforce its rules differ.

Even the laws of today's political administration which we are obliged to follow have been adopted from religious code and adapted to suit specific demography oriented needs. However, at a personal level of the individual the reach of religion is more pronounced than the law. 'Law is blind', it is said and in this case it is certainly true. Law cannot see the individual needs and cater to it, because that would probably be seen as a breach of its clause of impartiality and equality. Contrarily, religion is flexible and can mutate suitably to address to individual whims while at the same time conserving the essence of its faith. In this respect religion transcends law in maintaining public order. No wonder religious ideals have spread more successfully than has any form of government.

'Crime cannot be controlled unless the criminal decides to forego it', another popular saying. This obviously shows that the change must be effected from within the person and no matter how it is framed, law has been and will always be seen by the general public as an external agent meant to govern it. While the law reaches out to the analytical mind, religion has the power to reach the person's emotional centre. Even the mighty law resorts to religion to correct its transgressors.

What would happen if the world shuns religion? Each person would probably do as he sees fit, oblivious to its consequences, because he does not have the inner 'conscience', usually built in the course of faith, to tell him what is right and wrong. Baser instincts would take over in the absence of a self-imposed abstinence from things considered wrong. Once again chaos would be the order of the day. Of course, I might be wrong, but then there is a good chance that this might happen. If that happens we might end up in a worse position than we are today.

It is an acceptable fact that in spite of its shortcomings of some of its laws, religion is a guiding light to a person's perspective of good and bad, something which will not develop on its own. It must be taught, instilled in the mind of the individual at a younger age, and practically religion has been and still is one of the best teachers.

Atheists might say that 'atheism' is simply the non-belief in the existence of God, and not discarding of the self-imposed rule. For all practical considerations, when there is no form of higher authority to fear or feel that you are obliged to answer, the individual will be lax in following those rules. Even though the concept of an omnipotent ever-seeing being might be creepy to some, it does play a commendable role in keeping people from choosing the wrong path. There is a good chance that thoughts like – "I'm not responsible to anyone. So why should I care?" crop up and that combined with the other nagging thought – "I'll circumvent my rule this one time. After all it is a rule I set for myself" form a deadly duo that is likely to take the person down his path of destruction. It's a natural and there are not many with a will strong enough to fight back those misleading thoughts.

Not only that but religion also provides the necessary incentive for the individual to be considerate and helpful even when the individual knows no one is looking. It may just be fear that drives it, but the end result is desirable. The person need not be religious to be spontaneously 'good' to others, but it is not an inherent attribute of atheism.

Moreover without a consensus on the rules that are to be followed, disagreement and misunderstanding are bound to erupt, with each person advocating his or her code of ethics as the right one. What is the chance that a whole section of the population believes in a single set of rules, without any external agent imposing it upon them? Not much, I believe. This defeats the purpose of atheism – a society devoid of violence and disagreement, the two undesirables which supporters of atheism claim are the domain of religion.

As an added bonus man can fall back to the bastion of religion when he has been rejected by friends and isolated by the society. It is the only form of soothing escapism that is not entertainment and helps the individual to get back on his feet.

Let me come back to the first line of this article, the quote from London's buses. When there is no proper unified set of rules to follow and no sense of responsibility at a personal level, confusion will prevail and that is quite likely to spawn violence and corruption. What was an inter-communal conflict soon becomes an inter-personal one. Under such circumstances how is anyone supposed to enjoy life?

Simply put atheism does not have the faculty to manage the complications arising out of the clash of individual agendas in a society without a unified code of conduct This one factor is enough to let loose the Pandora's Box. Not as an example of atheism but as an example of a society marred by the clash of individual agendas, I would put forth several African countries, most prominently Congo which reels under the pressure of civil war, with each faction fighting to have its own way.

Religion is nowhere close to being the foolproof method of preserving order in a society but it is a relatively better alternative to a world without religion. Atheism is just as good at being a solution as it is to being the source of troubles.