Evidence of Higher Reality

Proof of God

Soul-denying definitions

Materialists would define human life by denying soul, mind and God. They would explain the human experience by eliminating what makes us human. By prohibiting metaphysical thought they would enlighten us on the origins of the universe. They would frame the existential argument by leaving out any spiritual or supernatural element. They would shape the discussion on human civilization and its discontents purely in terms of self-interest. The popular science writers and their fans would deny that altruism and love exist except as the fantasy of poets.  They would deny the self while talking of “selfish” genes. Consciousness is reduced to something the brain does. The artists vision and the child’s sense of wonder are all impractical, useless anomalies. All that cannot  be monetized is useless. Only what is practical is valuable. Humans are units, resources to be managed and manipulated. The soul-denying atheists preach against faith, sermonize against belief, and give communion only to the true believers. By denying the soul and faith in God, the atheists would define human society by eliminating what most sets us apart from the animals.

What sets us apart from the animals?

Philosophers Noble Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

Atheism is not a new philosophy. Democritus of Greece tried to establish that cosmic reality is no more than atoms moving through the void. Plato abhorred his opinions.  In Sri Krishna Caitanya, Professor Nishikant Sannyal of Ravenshaw College, Calcutta, describes the history of atheism:

-->

Agnosticism and Skepticism deny the existence of possibility of the Knowledge of the Absolute. Both do so on the strength of their limited experience and without due consideration of the method proposed by the Scriptures. Both have an attitude of disbelief towards the method of revelation by their over-confidence in their own conclusions. This is really self-contradictory as neither professes to be able to know the Truth. The Skeptic is the greater sinner of the two, because he is not even prepared to admit the very existence of the Absolute. Both really depend on the method of narrow dogmatism in their own cases although appearing to condemn the attitude in the case of others. The explanation of this irrational attitude is to be sought, as in the case of atheists, in undue attachment to the prospects of this transitory world which is father to the thought that it would be heroic not to seek to fly from the state of ignorance and misery which is supposed by them to be unavoidable. The argument that is used by the theists is that ignorance and misery is due to the self-elected folly of the votaries of worldly vanities whose position is psychologically unsound and is also opposed to the moral principle. It is the Nihilistic attitude that becomes the worst of nuisances if it be allowed to pass itself off as a constructive ideal.

Professor Nisikant Sannyal of Ravenshaw College, Calcutta, cerca 1930