Who created whom?

I was, for a brief period, a member of a Whatsapp group of people of certified high intellectual capacity, crème de la crème, vintage 1971. And, it took me not more than about 10 days to realize that I do not belong to that group. This is the story of how I came to that realization.

There was more than enough traffic within this group, each having had nearly 4 years of interaction with every other member, and there was enough of “catching-up” stuff over the interregnum of more than 45 years, spread across the globe.

Okay, I enjoyed the “groupie” interactions from the sidelines, to be true, and my inputs were, if not minimal, extremely infrequent, nothing to Whatsapp about. I thought that the group, comprising so many people of high-intelligence, after the initial period of exchanging trivia would get down to something more serious.

There were hints of this happening as one member mentioned something adverse about the role of religion in people’s life. Prior to this, the administrator of the group, one of the more accomplished in the group, did caution about not taking names of individuals outside of the group and also about not talking about politics and political personalities. It was not censorship by any stretch of imagination, but some curtailment of whatever one wished to call it. I understood why.

Then, the inevitable happened. I raised a question, addressing specifically the person who wrote about religion. Perhaps I made a mistake - kind of bracketing religion and God together.

The addressee of my question responded sharply: obviously I am paraphrasing, “The problem is not about religion, but the things people do in the name of religion.”  He also asserted that religion and God cannot be bracketed together. So, I thought I could continue this conversation, bringing some heft to the group’s internal conversation, with none outside being any wiser. True, ocean-bottom trawling (called “trolling” in social mediaese) gathers everything in its wake but I figured none would give a penny for the group’s thoughts.  I was perched, in this instance, atop the proverbial ivory tower.

But, before I could type out my response, there appeared another message from my addressee to the administrator, apologizing for going beyond the allowed in the platform. I had not realized that philosophical discourse (at whatever level) is no better than political name calling. Something in me snapped and I withdrew.

Now, on this platform in which my posts rarely attract visitors (and I am very happy with that as I treat my blog posts as a tracker of my thoughts over time), I would not be dragged in by the bottom trawler. This is to hoping.

The first question I am going to ask is how God differs from religion. In other words, does God exist without religion? Let us not be in a hurry to answer this question. Wait for a heftier query.

Can society exist without religion? The question is deeper than what one might understand at first instance. You can have individuals who are indifferent to religion (different than being anti-religion) within a society; but, they have to tread a path not to “offend” people of faith (people who follow the dictates of a religion – even if only selectively). However, people of faith have unfortunately not been told about tolerance, notwithstanding what Vivekananda said in his much cited lectures at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893.

Of course, about people who are actively anti-religious, you do not have to ask – their lives, no less are at risk. People talk about homosexuals and lesbians “coming out”, as a matter of pride – thumbing their noses at society; but anti-religionists risk much more. One has to ask why.

Can there be an anti-religious movement in any society? I think not. Even when the so-called communist USSR (which was no more than a state-monopoly and the current Russia is no less so, with oligarchs replacing the state), religion existed underground. Only recently we heard that Christians in China are being hounded out, but the religion has gone only into hiding. Religion has never been extirpated, and cannot ever be. 

I am going to quote someone who would raise the hackles of even the few readers – Karl Marx. True, he said, “Religion is the opium of the people”. But, have you ever read what he said prior to this infamous sentence?

I will give the above in its context: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” The opium of religion does no more than getting you addicted to the iniquities of society and accept them as your lot.

What is common to all religions? Do not dare give me the unctuous and verily untrue idea that every religion preaches love, peace, and happiness to all. Every religion asks its followers to suffer in its name, and make others suffer. There is no exception. None.

Every religion puts itself atop all the others. Even Vivekananda did not pass up that opportunity in his famous speech (“...mother of all religions ...”, referring to Hinduism), implying that even if all religions are equal Hinduism is primus inter pares. This one never hears in discussions, because it besmirches Vivekananda’s supposed glory.

What do people suffer in the name of, say, Christianity? Ask black slaves (slavery was justified as sanctioned by Old Testament), think of Jews and Muslims in Europe in the 14^th century CE, and more recently just utter “Hitler”. You may wish to ask a larger group – women. They are not to open their mouth in the church! Oops, cruelty, unadulterated.

In the name of Islam, Muslims suffer, we all know that. And, others also do, and we know that too. In the name of Hinduism, I do not need to list out how people, both Hindus and others, suffer. Just look at Myanmar and you would notice the supposedly most peaceful of religions, Buddhism – in its name there are atrocities galore against Muslims.  

Then, why do we have religion at all? Why can we not get rid of it? A more difficult question I cannot imagine.

To get as deep as I can, I will refer to the book Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It is in that book Dawkins tentatively mooted, as analogy to the genetic replicator, gene, a cultural replicator which he fancifully named, to rhyme with gene, a meme.

As far as cultural replicators go, there is no replicator as productive as religion. Obviously there are “mutations” and within a short period you have multiple “religions”. The powers-that-be of some of the older streams call the newer progenies “cults”. You understand, whenever an organism gets too big, a hierarchy has to be established. So, it is up to you to call an entity a religion or a cult. Does Shirdi Sai Baba followers belong to a religion or a cult? You decide. Remember Jonestown massacre – called by its followers Peoples Temple Agricultural Project – popularly a “cult”, but for its adherents, “Peoples Temple”, a new religious movement.

Religion or cult, they are cultural replicators.

In the case of genes, they need a suitable niche in the eco-system. For a meme to replicate and propagate it needs a cultural eco-system and as a meme’s fidelity in reproduction is orders of magnitude less than that of a gene’s (just think of the game, Chinese Whispers), its niche must be very specific and stable. What is that niche?

God!

Religion needs an anchor because of the tenuousness, or to be frank, the infidelity of the religion meme. God provides that anchor.

God and religion are two sides of the same coin – the coin of cultural replicator.

Can you name a religion without a God? No, not even Buddhism (The Buddha has been incarnated as God, much to his disapproval, I imagine). Zoroastrianism? Ahura Mazda! Greek? Zeus and a host of others.

Can you name a God not associated with a religion?  You may be inclined to say Atheism. Does atheism count as a religion? No, for the simple reason every atheist I know will accept the reality of God if it can be so proven to the standards set by her.

Oh, I forgot to mention one religion, what name we give to it I am not aware but its God is the Greenback, the US currency!

I believe I have shown that there is no substantive difference between God and religion, each scratching the other’s back!

Raghuram Ekambaram