The Age of Ignorance

Every age is personified with a title like the Industrial Age, Dark Age, Iron Age, etc. They subtly denote what was driving human kind then or the general mood or state of life that made a man’s day during those times.  Time as an idea/concept/quantity always is the same, while what men did/do with it in a particular period of time matters in the making of an age. Our age, as people mostly tag is the ‘Age of Information’. Sorry, but many fail to understand the depth of this phrase or why our age is named so.

There are two aspects to any age, which will be discussed, that will conclude why this is also the Age of Ignorance. First will be the information accessibility and then man’s strength to tolerate, purse, persevere & then persist beyond his time. While it may seem like many of the other apparent factors like money, material, technology, etc. which seem very influential in each age was neglected in this article, but all of this are just the means to an age but they don’t define the age itself. Man’s mind above all shapes any age; we shall see it.

Information Accessibility:

Information is wealth, an old adage goes so. All ages are marked by men who shaped it with their vision, innovation or invention. Something they found out, which others missed, made a huge difference. A single idea, a thought (later extrapolated) reshaped the way men saw things. Men started seeing things in a different light, the way the discoverer alone did, initially. This idea or concept gives the information which modifies our viewpoint, when it’s logically convincing for us. Take gravity for an example. Not all, but most of us, still relate it to g, the way Newton defined it as. Likewise, even in a concept as deeply rooted as religion, we follow saints, prophets or spiritual texts that shape the way we see God. This shows the value of information in all the ages. This information was not freely available in all the ages prior to ours.

Two reasons can be attributed to this. One: In the first place, it was yet to be discovered I.e. no information. Two: People who knew it didn’t want to share it I.e. inaccessible information. Although the first seems like it can be waived off, it will form the key to the next part of our discussion; man’s perseverance. The latter is that, men who had information tried to keep it to themselves with their life. People died for information. It is not unheard of in early times; spies, snoopers and betrayers. While some information are meant to be confidential, like a military attack plan (which even now are), some can and should be shared, for the thirst of a man who can become an innovator himself. Now in our age, any one can refer a website or book to know what calculus is; it could be astonishing, but true, that ages before, when men (belonging to a different race, cult or sect) dearly wanted to know/learn calculus, were not taught by men who knew it. It was something among the elite few; you can call them scientists, groups, societies, etc.

Another point is that, dissemination/passing of information even if one wanted to, was difficult in those ages. Take the Dark Age for instance. When a loyal minister discovers 5 days before that the king is about to be assassinated in a couple of days, he can only send a messenger to make it known to the king, and only to the king, for a leak (even to the queen) may cost dearly; any other knowing it will spoil it for both sides; also the messenger should be one of the most loyal and a fast one, for even 5 days might not be enough to scale the land by horse.

In our age, it is all about information. We thrive on information, we live on it, we’re always connected, even on the move; a digital revolution, so to speak. Sending information secretly is a walk in the park, they say these days. We have the telephones, emails, messengers and a plethora of other means, with which we can convey information in the fraction of a second. In fact, dissipating information became so easy that people have their own blog spaces where they can write about anything they want to sell out. Are all of them listened to? That is a different question.

But the truth still remains; information didn’t roam freely then. What I know, my father doesn’t, what my father comprehends, my grand dad doesn’t. We say, they lived in those obscure times, when they just took care of their field of information and lived with it. While today, we can know what cancer is, or what the design blueprint of a camera is, what is the percentage of uranium that goes inside an A-bomb. Even though in some ages (like the industrial age), these information were available (the author never denies it didn’t), it was not easily accessible or readily available in the intake able state, to the common man. He needs to search a lot to get/understand it. On the contrary, for us this is just a few clicks away; hence the name ‘Information Age’.

Man’s Perseverance to Learn:

As aforementioned, men’s dying for information shows how much he was ready to learn. It went to the extent that they made slaves out of man, due to the result of him being uninformed. Still, men of those times wanted to learn, wanted to know. It is this thirst of theirs that defined their ages. Take for instance Einstein, he didn’t have a proper schooling, which most people do have now (I mean, who live digitally and ramble about info ago), in spite of that, his thirst for physics made him learn what was so distant to a person as him in his early age. Man had the thirst and the attention to look for the details, that which interested him. Even in the state of no information did he find information (all the inventions like telephone, atomic nucleus, etc. display this). As mentioned man’s ability to tolerate, purse, persevere & then persist mattered. First, they had lot of tolerance to learn what seemed boring and unimportant to many, and then they had pursued and persevered their dreams, see it through to success, which made them stand out and made their name to still live on. Above all men were patient then.

Now, in our age, information is everywhere. How many pay attention and read? Man’s this ability to persevere has diminished as much as information accessibility has increased. Coming to tolerance, when you write an article of 11 paragraphs and ask your friends to read it, how many tend to read it fully. They just say, “it’s good, I glanced it, but it’s too long, perhaps when I’m free I’ll go thru’”. (If you are reading this till here, I’m glad you are not whom I’m talking about.) We want everything to be fast, easy and ours. Or else we tag it as “Oh BORING!”, “Oh com’ on, cut to the chase!” and so on. Old fashioned ways of getting the full essence of a happening and replying are gone. People want everything now, everything easy, to put their listening or pursuing senses to sleep. This explains that man is now more of a relaxing creature (looking forward to weekends) with all the information out there, waiting to be read.

Conclusion:

This brings us back to the indelible fact that we are ignorant. If you argue we are not, say for all the information available amongst us, if we had that ability to pursue like our fathers did, why we see a lot of commotions, arguments and lesser sane men in the world. How many new innovations did we hear compared to what we heard during the WWII times? Back then hobby outlets were few, entertaining and also educating. People read a lot of books or played games; as in physical sports or mind games (like chess); they understood more out of life. Youngsters these days, want fast entertainment. The author of this article mostly hears suggestions like “Reading is boring, lets watch a movie or play a computer game!”. When you read, you need to engage all your senses with your mind. Mind controls sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. It requires lot of will to do so (which is a sort of meditation, concentration or focus); by listening to music, thru’ the sense of hearing all other senses are entertained; but movies and virtual games, are the least amount of work/perseverance required of all entertainment forms, as it entertains most of our senses (primarily the important ones – sight and hearing). These days, people who have a hobby of reading are lesser, than people who listen to music, who in turn are lesser than people who have a habit of watch movies or play virtual games.

From inter-continental wars to common house rows, problem roots from misunderstanding or intolerance. Why? We are not listening, not looking enough for the information we need. Even though all information is available out there for us to read, we tend to ignore. Many a time, the author of this article has seen friends arguing about the same idea without knowing it; they did not know/understand what they are fighting for or against. We presume, we tend to ignore, it’s because impatience is the word of this era. We live in an age where people can’t wait. When the first processor was fast, we wanted it faster. We leapt from seconds to milli, micro, nano and now pico-seconds. But whatever the speed of computers are, as long as we, as men, don’t slow down to be more receptive, more willing to learn, understand more from Mother Nature, we will tend to have more and more information (with a few churning them out) and a lot less readers, and more confusions, for we are living in the Age of Ignorance.

Dominant vs Submissive – The Power Play

In this modern era, relationships are often clouded by power play, the attempt to have control; in other words, claiming the authority, who takes the driver seat (or) who is the decision-maker. But, for a relationship to grow & to withstand the test of times, a balance is to struck between the two. Who plays what, is to be decided, rather than gaming on the power play, which mostly leads to discontent and finally the breakdown of the whole relationship.

Before moving on to dominant and submissive characteristics, one point is to be made clear. Individuality is a separate entity of a person, and is not to be mistaken with a person being dominant or submissive. Individualistic persons can be both dominant and submissive. A person strongly believing in his/her own ideas can try to impose it on others (dominant individualist) and the same person can just accept another ones ideas in a subject in which they don’t like to have a say, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any individuality. Likewise a non-individualistic person can be domineering, trying to get empty attention from the crowd and the last, 4th category, is the person without individuality and being submissive, which doesn’t need an explanation or example. First let’s be clear on what the adjectives ‘dominant’ and ’submissive’ mean, and the underlying reasons for a person being/choosing either of the one.

Dominant

Most (NOT All) of us do one thing or the other, whose deep-in motive is, to grab attention of a greater crowd. Be it the family or business colleagues/competitors or class-mates or friends or the whole world (as in the case of awards, etc.) Some have this attention-seeking behavior in greater quantities and some less. But if you really analyze this is greater detail, we get a different angle to the same problem. Just ask this question: When will you need something? Only when you lack that thing or when you can feel its absence, so high. So a person seeking attention is basically the one having an insecure feeling when there is no attention poured on them or, in other words, they cannot stand the fact that they aren’t in people’s conscious. Likewise, a dominant is a person who is satisfied when they feel that they are in control, which really means they really lack in true control, which leads them to want for want. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that their decisions are final and there is no other say beyond it. For example, consider a dominant in a group who is just forcing every one to follow a decision but as far as other ones are tolerating and doing it, he/she can continue to do so, but what if they all barely say “No way! We aren’t doing it!” Once such an act happens, in fact the bossy guy will feel bad, and ultimately breakdown since he/she feels an emptiness since their insecure feeling creeps in telling them that “I no longer have control over them; I’m no longer heard; I’m ignored”. So being a dominant only means the way (aggressive) you show your (non-) individuality. But, yes, good managers with individuality and right sense make very good decisions. They may tell it in an aggressive way, but thats because they strongly believe in their decision. These highly individualistic ones become dominant because they are really good at decision making and the group too accepts him/her since its for a greater good. But those who tend to be bossy annoying everyone without reason is where the problem starts, both in personal and professional relationships. Why a boy/girl tries to be dominant over his/her girlfriend/boyfriend? Its either because they strongly believe their decision is right and will do good to both or because they can satisfy their ego by getting a secure feeling when their loved one submits to them. When they are made to submit, as stated earlier, they get an insure feeling that they have lost control and are afraid of what will happen next. They want to be in the driver seat because they need to know where the car is heading towards, they don’t want to feel insecure by going to an unknown destiny.

Submissive

A submissive is mostly a person who doesn’t care of what happens next, as they don’t have a insecure feeling or even if they have, they don’t know what to do next to stop it, so they let the other make the decisions and rest in the back seat. But in a relationship, submissive is also equally (at times, more) important for the car to roll smoothly. When they refuse to submit results might be more severe for the dominant, as it is they who feel insecure, not the submissive ones. In many relationships, subtly, submissive ones even become the decision makers (back seat, but still routing the driver). They go in the pace of the dominant and give them proper reasons on why their decision is better. Understanding dominants do listen to it and agree to it, at times. But the difference is that the submissive, after giving the decision, lets the dominant to take control over, thereby both the dominant feels good, since they feel they haven’t lost control and the submissive’s individuality still exists underneath, which satisfies them.

Conclusion

There are 3 possible combinations. Dominant X Dominant, Dominant X Submissive and Submissive X Submissive. When both the partners are dominant, there is high power play and lot of ego clashes. But in such combination, its better to know who is better at what. When A is better at X and B at Y, then B should be submissive when they are dealing with domain X letting A dominate, and likewise A should be submissive when they are in domain Y, such a compromise is best. In cases of both being strong in the same domain, its better to do things (parallel) independently and finally share the experiences alone, rather than doing it together. In Submissive X Submissive combination, both can jointly venture into things so that they get a strong say in that domain and whoever gets better at it, can give assistance to the other. In Dominant X Submissive combination, the decisions can be made and carried out by the dominant, while submissive can subtly influence it for their greater good and finally once the dominant is satisfied with the decision, the submissive does it as per dominants orders, and here the submissive is also happy, since his/her effort is based on a decision that was influenced by them too. As for me, I mostly dominant , but still enjoy being submissive, at times, with some.

Fate or Free will?

Everyday we hear talks such as “I will do this? I will do that?”, but are we sure wedo it and see through the end of it? Which further leads to, ‘Are we the ones responsible for our actions or is it a different cause that makes us act so?’ But wait; talking about influences on actions, ‘Are our actions completely due to our will or is it already determined - and we are just acting the act?’ Lets get into the branch of philosophy that deals with this and more. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the nature of world. It is the study of reality and existence. The Problem of Free will (a debate in metaphysics) is the problem of whether humans exercise control over their actions or are they predetermined. Simply put, “Is the flow of events fated or free to be determined by us?”. Different doctrines do exist in this regard. First we will have a specific look at each, so that different angles of the problem can be better understood.

Determinism

Determinism is the philosophy that argues that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No element of surprise or wholly random events occur. This being said it doesn’t mean it denies free will, completely. There are two major divisions in determinism: Compatibilism (accepting free-will, to certain extent) and Hard Determinism (free-will denied completely).

Compatibilism: Apart from the default determinism idea, Compatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. To illustrate their position, compatibilists point to clear-cut cases of someone’s free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or other forms of constraint. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is causally determining the future, but because the aggressor is overriding the victim’s desires and preferences about his own actions. Here the The aggressor is coercingthe victim and, according to compatibilists, this is what overrides free will. Thus, they argue that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals’ choices are the results of their own desires and preferences, and are not overridden by some external (or internal) force. So they accept a mixture of both – fate and free will.

Hard Determinism: This is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature.Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity is able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail. E.g. The Architect character in The Matrix Trilogy.

Problem of First Cause: If every action has a prior cause associated to it, then one who goes up the chain of events will surely get to the question of which would have been the first cause that initiated all the chain below it. Deism, a philosophy articulated in the seventeenth century, holds that the universe has been deterministic since creation, but ascribes the creation to a metaphysical God or first cause outside of the chain of determinism. God may have begun the process, Deism argues, but God has not influenced its evolution. This perspective illustrates a puzzle underlying any conception of determinism:

Assume: All events have causes, and their causes are all prior events. There is no cycle of events such that an event (possibly indirectly) causes itself.

The picture thus gives us is that Event A_N is preceded by A_N-1, which is preceded by A_N-2, and so forth.

Under these assumptions, two possibilities seem clear, and both of them question the validity of the original assumptions:

(1) There is an event A₀ prior to which there was no other event that could serve as its cause.

(2) There is no event A₀ prior to which there was no other event, which means that we are presented with an infinite series of causally related events, which is itself an event, and yet there is no cause for this infinite series of events.

But still in the problem of first cause, it involves the element God into the sequence of events which still remains a mystery and who isn’t transparent for discussion. Moreover, if there was a first event, who/which is the cause for it? If no one accounts to it, then the whole theory’s purpose is defeated by this argument. So the problem of first cause still exists and deserves a solid proof to be given.

Libertarianism

This is the doctrine that accepts free will at all levels and instances. They deny causality completely. Every action is a broken independent unit which arises out of the free will of the doer. Actions aren’t due to fate, compulsion or causality. They deny all these three ideologies. I do whatever I feel like doing and nothing stops me, if it does its because of the inability of the doer (me) to overcome it rather than the effect of a previous cause.

Fatalism

Fatalism is a different doctrine which views that human deliberation and actions are pointless and ineffectual in determining events, because whatever will be will be. One shouldn’t confuse Fatalism with Determinism. Fatalism means that all actions are predetermined (fate) and not because of any action-reaction (causality) chain. It explains events like they are already stored in place earlier and we are just acting the act, whatever we are supposedto do, we do it beyond our knowledge and lies beyond our control. This is the true fate theory whereas, determinism gives a rule that there is a cause, but fatalism denies that too, by arguing that no cause or no rule, but just preset log of events. Fatalists believe that these events are determined by an element which is claimed to be God, Time, etc. E.g. One ancient argument, called the idle argument, went like this:

• If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
• Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor.
• So, calling a doctor makes no difference.

Arguments like the above are usually rejected even by causal determinists, who may say that it may be determined that only a doctor can cure you. There are other examples that show clearly that human deliberation makes a big difference – a chess player who deliberates should usually be able to defeat one of equal strength who is only allowed one second per move.

Doctrines – Hierarchy [Courtesy: Wikipedia.org]

Finally…

There are times when we win a competition or mostly when a successful event occurs we feel the line “I did it!” and when we terribly fail in certain events, we tend to say “Bad luck!” or “Lady luck was on his/her side.” But still do we know why or what happens internally? Is it fate or free will that led to what we are now? As for the part of determinism, we do some action like studying hard and we clear the exams by acquiring high marks, then this strongly feels like determinism that “I studied well earlier so I reap the benefit of good marks now”, but still one cannot be sure since there are students who get high marks without studying but just appearing for the exams, they comment it as “He got first mark by fluke or luck!”. Whatever it is these are just egoistic comments given without enough thought or analysis. So these these cannot be accounted for a proper decision.

But I, honestly, have felt that for some events that even after trying so hard I don’t get the expected output. It is such events when we are forced to believe in fatalism. But for many reasons we are also encouraged to believe in determinism, because this argument “I am fated to fail, so why am I to study knowing that I would fail?” is absurd since we don’t know the outcome, without knowing it, being a fatalism couldn’t be practical. Then, as for Libertarianism, not in all actions do we feel that we are in complete control. Since in almost all events there exists an element of surprise which we don’t know and, in fact, to know that element that we do the action to get the outcome. Thus true libertarianism cannot be accepted.

Finally, in Determinism, hard determinism questions our every existence since the first cause is not yet known fully, we don’t know the purpose (prior causes) of the events that we live daily and its initiator is still not fully transparent. Compatibilism accepts causality with certain level of free-will, in fact in our daily life, we feel this very often. In some actions we feel that free will have won (proper calculation and execution of the action) and in certain others we strongly feel that an event occurred due to a miscalculation previously done and as an effect of it that we are facing the current event. So I vote for Campatiblism out of all the above, because it gives a meaning (to me) in why we at least exists and that we exercise control over our actions to certain degree.

Remember:

You Are Born To Live and Not Living Because You Are Born.
Don’t Just Exist, Persist Beyond Your Existence.

The Evolution of God – From Atheism to Pantheism

God, as stated in many philosophies, is omnipotent and omnipresent creator/ruler and in some cases as the protector of mankind. But what or who is God? Is He the creator or the creation (of man)? This question may seem completely stupid or (the other extreme) overlooked mostly as known.

Atheism:

The first human was born an animal; no civilization was there to influence him or to get influenced by him. When a human born is left as such on his own, he know of no God(s), except, if he considers nature a power greater than himself and thereby as God. But, the irrefutable truth is that man, as-such (when born), is an atheist; it is his surroundings and company that teaches him of Gods, religions, etc. This being the first state, it still continues to exist, but not like stone-age men (due to the lack of God-knowledge), but after long researches and questioning on existing beliefs of God, they prefer Atheism, as their mind refuses to belief something blindly without any concrete proof.

Theism:

Man ventures into the world as a nothing, without any resources or tool of his own, except for his power of understanding, logic and mind, ultimately. The ability to desire, to dream, to create leads to expectations. Fulfilled dreams aren’t teachers, as said many times, but the ones in which he fails to realize his dreams, he tries up to his level of endurance, but at one point (breaking point) he is forced to think of fate and ultimately of some force, greater than his self, acting on him which stops him from realizing his dream. Here is where the concept of God sprouted among men.

Polytheism:

Initially, man worshipped Gods in forms of nature and components of man’s mind, which too continues till date. Greeks/Romans worshipped nature as Jupiter/Zeus (Thunder), Apollo (Sun), Ceres (Earth), etc. along with feelings/doings as Cupid (Love), Somnus/Hypnos (Sleep), Minerva (Wisdom), etc. and other creations of man like Janus (God of Doors), Dionysus (Wine), etc.

Hindus worship God as Brahma (The Creator), Vishnu (The Sustainer) and Shiva (The Destroyer) – The Hindu Trinity. Starting from the Creator, man undergoes a process of birth and thereby living a life on Earth to get rid of all his Karma (after-effects for his previous actions; causality) in a world of Maya (world is a dream, as in Matrix) where-in the Sustainer can help man by his sincere Puja (worshipping God in any way or by standard rituals). Finally the Destroyer takes him out of this path of suffering and leads to Moksha (liberation of the soul from the birth-death cycle).

The same is preached in Buddhism as the concept of Wheel of Life where the wheel (birth-death cycle) rotates in the arms of Yama (God of Death or Time in some references).
These doctrines accept God as muti-personalities or that many Gods simultaneously exits with different duties to perform for each. Click here for view the Wheel of Life painting [Courtesy: dharma-media.org].

Monotheism:

Majority of men felt that God cannot be diversified into many, but a single creator and ruler of all. Many philosophies like Christianity believe in God as one supreme being capable of anything and having messengers and angels, but all are considered subordinates, no one equals him in his rank. “He is the single, supreme creator/ruler of all” – is this doctrine’s belief.

Christians claim to profess belief in one God. Historically, most Christian churches have taught that the nature of God is something of a mystery: while being a unity, God also manifests as three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (collectively called the Trinity), the classic Christian “three becomes one” formula. Typically, Christian orthodoxy holds that these three persons are not independent but are homoousios (a Hellenistic Greek transliteration), meaning sharing the same essence or substance of divinity. The true nature of the Trinity is held to be an inexplicable mystery, deduced from New Testament but developmentally is the result of theological debate in the Council of Nicea in 325, codified in 381, and reached its full development through the work of the Cappadocian Fathers. (courtesy: Wikipedia)

Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur’an, which adherents believe was sent by God (Arabic: Allāh) through Muhammad. Followers of Islam, known as Muslims, believe Muhammad to have been God’s final prophet; most of them see the historic record of the actions and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad related in the Hadith as indispensable tools for interpreting the Qur’an.

These are some of the doctrines that believe in a single God.

Henotheism:

As the way God evolved led to many diversification in the view of God, clashes in ideology occurred. This led to believes like Henotheism. This doctrine and the word was coined by Max Müller.

This is the doctrine that believes in a single God but tolerates that existence of other Gods. This might be a bit confusing, but actually it means this – “I believe in One God alone, but whatever others call as God(s), I can’t accept, but can tolerate them getting worshipped. Maybe they are Gods too, but I strongly believe that mine alone exists”

Kathenotheism is a subset version of Henotheism where one God is worshipped at one point of time, this is also by the philologist Max Müller.

Pantheism: (finally!)

This is a very simple doctrine which just means – “God is All – All is God”. God is seen in everything. Even tough this is simpler said, its pretty complex to get into that feel this tries to convey.

According to Pantheism, all Gods are accepted. You tolerate Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. That point is fine – simple and clear. But what or whom do you follow as God is the question. God is felt in everything, in the meaning, one can feel it right in the form nature – in the shrills of river descending, in the irregular sound of rain and thunder, in the cry of a baby, in the work of art (sculpture, painting, etc.), in the works of men, like invention of wheel (and so one), in dance of a cabaret dancer – up to the way a couple makes love, in the form of man’s enjoyment. Creation, ultimately, wherever or whoever does it, is worshipped. Every man and everything is considered God.

Universe as a whole, whatever is inside and whatever it is doing or getting done upon it is seen as God.

In this belief, which isn’t a religion at all, everything is worshipped, thereby all religions becoming its subset. So a person following Pantheism not only tolerates other religions but accepts and prays anything that other do & don’t pray as God.

Albert Einstein states “A human being is a part of a whole, called by us “universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”, which express his pantheist belief.

The Truth:

When viewed with the glasses of a true thinker rather than a blind follower, God, as a concept, is the creation of man. By which I don’t come to say that God is completely nothing and is just a prank by man; No, I don’t mean that. Lets get to the concept of God, before getting to God, as a personality.

Right from the beginning of mankind, men tried to control men. A man who can control his fellow beings at his will, can fulfill his desire with much ease. (More than that) This he did to get a feeling of security that all men are under him and his word has the power to make others do whatever he wishes them to. So he used God as a conceptual tool to make others obey him, where he can say God needs something, instead of he, the controller, wants that thing (anything, in fact). This he did, as it would be rejected, if he openly admits, that the wants are for him and not for God.

So what do I mean by the concept of God? It means just the beliefs that God has rules, or we should do this/that to please God, only if we do this we can get that from God, etc. All these rules and stuff are either just control over man’s logical & analytical mind to stop him from reasoning and to make him dance to certain tunes that controlling men (creator of these rules) want them to dance for (or) the other reason could be due to guilt feelings that man gets when he feels he has done something wrong. So as to remove the stain he does something in return to God to tally it.

In first place, guilt itself is a feeling that is only cultured in a man, when his father/mother teaches something is wrong, it gets stored in the person’s psyche labelled as ‘wrong’. So when he does something that is in the not-supposed-to-do list, he feels what we call ‘guilt’. Its obvious that, a true thief knows of no guilt when he steals, or else he would flunk in the process of thieving. Why no guilt? Because, he hasn’t got anything in life to survive, so existence is given more priority than morality. Theft isn’t a wrong doing at all for him, in his psyche’s records. If you feel theft as a wrong, its because of the way you were brought up.

Ultimately, whether we accept or not, the inexorable truth is that a/some super-power exists beyond man for sure, for the simple reason that we can’t answer questions like – Why can’t all men live forever? Why death occurs? Why do we depend on nature for everything, if we are all so powerful? Even though we can have answers to these questions, they are very vague and no concrete proof is given to solve what is in question. And there is no solid proof for both existence and non-existence of God. But there exists solid proofs of existence of nature and the things that man inevitably depends on for his living, every second.

In today’s world, there are so many religions and fights in the name of it. But for a true thinker, accepting the superpower that is beyond man, has been done for quite a long time, knowingly or unknowingly, for sure. Proof: In forms of the widely known component called probability (p) which we use in scientific & mathematical methods, for solving problems. Why do we include this component when all the remaining ones are known quantities? This is because we cannot decided all and there still exists a component of uncertainty, mystery to be decoded, which we call as God.

As for me, I’m a pantheist. I go to church, mosque, temple, etc. and I feel the power every now and then in so many forms including patternless sounds to meaningful symphonies. But I deny the concept of God that its rule bound, because if He knows it all and He is made all of Love, we don’t have to deceive Him by doing a favour so that He can relieve us from suffering & pain, then that would become mere trade/business. This is what I feel and above all I’m true to myself, the best of all, I don’t kill people in the name of God. So I’m completely at peace with my doctrine of God.