After a long time, I got to think about religion, spiritualism and God today when I was watching this rather popular talk by Alain de Botton, titled "Atheism 2.0" on the TED website. A brilliant lecture, the kind TED is famous for, Botton elucidates in his talk, what he calls the superstructure of a new idea that starts at the basic postulate that "Of Course there is no God" and that "believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and is very childish", but goes on to adopt practices from religions as a way of "culture" and lifestyle.
It is a very intriguing idea. What it fundamentally says is that, while Atheists are completely opposed to the idea of one man up in the "heavens" who creates all of us, they dont exactly have to be opposed to the more humanitarian and social ideas that religion proposes. Botton says that the whole concept that you either "believe in God, or dont get to sing Christmas Carols" is ridiculous. Botton says that the next generation of Atheists are the ones who like the ritualistic side of religions, the practices and the lifestyle that religions prescribe, just not the God. It is a simple, yet powerful way of perceiving religion.
As I was watching the video, the thought process started within my mind. Was this possible ? Why would anyone want to be stuck with the practices of religion when one doesn't like the religion itself ? It is known that the biggest proponents of Atheism are the Scientist classes, why would they want to have anything to do with God or religion ? That was when I realised that the answers were all around us.
Hinduism, the World's oldest religion is the foremost example that comes to my mind when I think of a religion that places lesser emphasis on God and more emphasis on the lifestyle. No dont go by the Hinduism we see today, cos somewhere in its 3000 year old history, its crux has been lost. No, I talk of the Hinduism that was designed for the scientists and the practitioners of the Vedic times. The Hinduism that originated in our country as a social/moral/scientific code of conduct prescribed not by a religious institution, but by Society as a whole. Hinduism never paid emphasis on praying to an idol, or to any other material form of God, rather the Gods were the various forms of nature which nurtured humans - Sun, the rivers, the mountains, the Cows, and the like. The Hinduism that we read in our scriptures was more about "how to live a productive life" than about "who to pray, when to pray, how to pray", which is supposed to be one of the basic requirements of Atheism 2.0. In fact, I was surprised that Botton didn't talk about Hinduism in his 18 minute analysis. I was keenly anticipating it.
The other big example that I can think of when one talks about religion being a collection of ideas from various sources in which one believes, again from India, is the brilliant idea of Din-E-Ilahi. To those of you who dont know what that is, it was a religion introduced by the Great Mughal Emperor, Akbar, that compiled the best practices from all known religions of that time. In quality terms, it was some kind of a benchmarking done from scratch to obtain a totally new product, so we had something that was a mixture of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Sadly though, the religiously conscious people of sixteenth century India rejected the idea and Din-E-Ilahi died with Akbar the Great. The principles lived on though and that could have been in many ways, the second time A non-religious Spiritual movement could have succeeded in India, after Hinduism of course.
The idea of Atheism 2.0 is simple. It is polite disagreement of Faith, but complete acceptance of a lifestyle subscribed by a religion. Everything religious can have an Atheism 2.0 analogy - Pilgrimages can be the corporate tours that businessmen undertake, Religious Sermons can be the Lectures that are delivered in Seminar Halls, Prayers could be celebrated as Music that is an essential form of contemporary art. The idea is just removing "Faith in that higher power controlling our lives" can unify Faith and Atheism. That is what Atheism 2.0 strives to achieve, and that is what the great Vedic Maharshis first started out to create.
The world's oldest religion is, ironically, the biggest example of what one can possibly call Atheism 2.0 !
It is a very intriguing idea. What it fundamentally says is that, while Atheists are completely opposed to the idea of one man up in the "heavens" who creates all of us, they dont exactly have to be opposed to the more humanitarian and social ideas that religion proposes. Botton says that the whole concept that you either "believe in God, or dont get to sing Christmas Carols" is ridiculous. Botton says that the next generation of Atheists are the ones who like the ritualistic side of religions, the practices and the lifestyle that religions prescribe, just not the God. It is a simple, yet powerful way of perceiving religion.
As I was watching the video, the thought process started within my mind. Was this possible ? Why would anyone want to be stuck with the practices of religion when one doesn't like the religion itself ? It is known that the biggest proponents of Atheism are the Scientist classes, why would they want to have anything to do with God or religion ? That was when I realised that the answers were all around us.
Hinduism, the World's oldest religion is the foremost example that comes to my mind when I think of a religion that places lesser emphasis on God and more emphasis on the lifestyle. No dont go by the Hinduism we see today, cos somewhere in its 3000 year old history, its crux has been lost. No, I talk of the Hinduism that was designed for the scientists and the practitioners of the Vedic times. The Hinduism that originated in our country as a social/moral/scientific code of conduct prescribed not by a religious institution, but by Society as a whole. Hinduism never paid emphasis on praying to an idol, or to any other material form of God, rather the Gods were the various forms of nature which nurtured humans - Sun, the rivers, the mountains, the Cows, and the like. The Hinduism that we read in our scriptures was more about "how to live a productive life" than about "who to pray, when to pray, how to pray", which is supposed to be one of the basic requirements of Atheism 2.0. In fact, I was surprised that Botton didn't talk about Hinduism in his 18 minute analysis. I was keenly anticipating it.
The other big example that I can think of when one talks about religion being a collection of ideas from various sources in which one believes, again from India, is the brilliant idea of Din-E-Ilahi. To those of you who dont know what that is, it was a religion introduced by the Great Mughal Emperor, Akbar, that compiled the best practices from all known religions of that time. In quality terms, it was some kind of a benchmarking done from scratch to obtain a totally new product, so we had something that was a mixture of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Sadly though, the religiously conscious people of sixteenth century India rejected the idea and Din-E-Ilahi died with Akbar the Great. The principles lived on though and that could have been in many ways, the second time A non-religious Spiritual movement could have succeeded in India, after Hinduism of course.
The idea of Atheism 2.0 is simple. It is polite disagreement of Faith, but complete acceptance of a lifestyle subscribed by a religion. Everything religious can have an Atheism 2.0 analogy - Pilgrimages can be the corporate tours that businessmen undertake, Religious Sermons can be the Lectures that are delivered in Seminar Halls, Prayers could be celebrated as Music that is an essential form of contemporary art. The idea is just removing "Faith in that higher power controlling our lives" can unify Faith and Atheism. That is what Atheism 2.0 strives to achieve, and that is what the great Vedic Maharshis first started out to create.
The world's oldest religion is, ironically, the biggest example of what one can possibly call Atheism 2.0 !
