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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.