Yes, I am adamant but not a “fundamentalist”

This post has been brewing in me for nearly a year and a half. It must have become cold by now, but someone or the other keeps warming it up. It is now the turn of the shoo-in for the Nobel Prize in physics – Peter Higgs [1].

I am, in my own mind, as opposed to religion is as Dawkins is, in my mind that is. Therefore, if in this post I refer to what Dawkins has said too often for your comfort, please take that as coming from me, equally discomforting. I am not here to make you feel comfortable reading this. I just want to say what I want to say, even if it appears to be coming out of the mouth of Dawkins.

Can being loud while denouncing religion be tagged “fundamentalist”? This is what Peter Higgs says about me. OK, he said that about Dawkins, and that is no different than calling me names as I am equally passionate. I have said this before: a “fundamentalist” takes pride in the fact the he is not going to change his position. While many times during heated discussions I have been called “adamant”, the charge never stuck to me because and only because I had already put down the conditions that would change my stance. Dawkins has called this “evidence”. I have conceded further: any consistent formulation arising out of the agreed starting position. I frontload my arguments.

I may be adamant, but within limits. “Fundamentalism” does not recognize limits; ergo, I cannot be a “fundamentalist”. I can be, indeed I always am passionate when I argue. But, that is far from being a “fundamentalist”. Unfortunately, even a brilliant mind, a future Nobel winner did not catch this nuance.

Dawkins, as hard hitting as he is, is not shrill in denouncing religion. He says that his questions do no more than “clearly and reasonably” challenge religious claims [2]. And, I agree. But he says that atheism “is lack of belief in God.” I differ: Atheism, for me, is the irrelevance of the concept of God, even conceding the concept.

Though I developed the following lines about irrelevance of God / religion independently, I do not claim I was the first. To a congenitally blind person, colors must be irrelevant. Sometimes she hears “the sky is so cool, so blue,” and comes to associate blue with cool, the sensation she is not disabled enough to perceive. Then, she hears her engineer friend say that “blue hot iron is hotter than red hot iron,” and also her litterateur friend say, “his eyes pierced her like the cold blue steel of the stiletto.” This is why blue, any color, is irrelevant to her at best and confusing at worst. Religion is likewise to me, and it is difficult for me to see how it can be otherwise to others. OK, maybe I am handicapped in this particular sense and they are not. But calling disabled people names is no go, at least in civil society.

On Dec. 24^th, 1979, I attended a Midnight Service at a Protestant (I do not remember the denomination) church in Dade City, Florida at the behest of my host. They made it clear that it will be a communion service, and while they were outwardly gracious to let me off the hook from eating and drinking Jesus Christ, the pressure was on me to attend the service. I was also allowed, ever so graciously, to desist from receiving communion. I did as requested / bade. I mark that day / night as one of the most eventful days of my life.

I was launched on the path of my own brand of atheism, of God being irrelevant in my life. Please note that I was a staunch believer and a practicing Hindu, till that day. After all, the evening before any exam at IIT Madras, I dutifully went and paid obeisance to the presiding deity at the temple in the institution, Lord Jalaganteshwar.

I was reminded of this day when I read that Dawkins, as the sub-warden of New College, said grace at dinner time “out of respect for tradition”. Well, I did not receive communion not out of disrespect for that tradition but as a nascent act of rebellion against religion.

I had recently written in a draft of an article that engineering education must be “leavened” by experience in engineering organizations, even during the student’s academic career. I had in mind what BITS, Pilani has had in its curriculum for many years. I was asked to delete the word “leavened”.

I did as asked but took it upon myself the task of explaining why “leavened” is appropriate in the context. I refer to how Jews left Egypt in a hurry and had no time to “leaven” the dough. Even to this day, Jews celebrate Passover with “unleavened” bread. By using the word, I was stressing that in a hurry to enter the job market, engineering education must not lose sight of “leavening” the students in the industry.

I do not know whether others do it, but I repeatedly stress that the point made in the Narasimha avatar is that there is a grey area in every issue. It is never just black and white. These points, which I make in my discussions and arguments enhance the relevance of our scripture, when read in a secular tone and take the dialogue to a higher level. To this extent, and no more, I am beholden to religions.

When Dawkins endorsed free distribution of Bible in schools, he had in mind a slightly different aim. He wanted students to understand the literary standards, of course. But, he went further. He wanted students to be aware of the moral depravity evinced in the Book too. I do not have such dual goals. I am much too simpler-minded.

Dawkins is Dawkins and I am I (or, is it I am me?).

Even so, I am as passionate arguing why religion is irrelevant. You can, of course, argue with me, but please do acknowledge the starting point. You have to make God / religion relevant to me, on my terms. Yes, I am adamant but not a “fundamentalist”. I am willing to change, but it is for you to change me. I will not be making it any easier for you.

Raghuram Ekambaram    

References

1.    Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious fundamentalism, Alok Jha, The Guardian, December 26, 2012

2.    What is the proper place for religion in Britain’s public life? Will Hutton and Richard Dawkins, The Observer, February 19, 2012