Our identity in the cosmos

 Hi everyone. So I wanted to talk about agnostics. Because we do encounter agnostics a lot. And one of the reasons I wanted to talk about this is because there is a whole lot of kind of misguided enthusiasm for soft religiosity going on. And I'll tell you what I mean by that. Think about what agnostics mean when they say that they're agnostic about the existence of God. You can be agnostic about many things, by the way, if you're undecided about something you're agnostic about it. But agnosticism in general in the philosophic sense means not knowing whether God exists or not. So when someone says the rational position is agnostic, it is a little disingenuous because there are a lot of things in life that you can be agnostic about. Do you know for sure that there aren't invisible space dragons orbiting mercury right now? No. Are you agnostic about it? Are you going to say that until I find out definitively that there are no invisible space dragons orbiting mercury right now. I will continue to think that I don't know if there are invisible space dragons orbiting, mercury right now. Right? So when someone says this about God proposition for which there is no evidence. Are they not automatically saying that they are leaning a little bit towards the possibility that it might be true? I think very little is said about agnostics actually leaning towards religion. When someone says they're agnostic, they're not actually, you know that they're not actually in the center. They're not actually equidistant from both ends. They are actually closer to the side that says that something like God is real. They're leaning towards the probability or the possibility that God exists. And because they don't have evidence because there can't be any evidence maybe, they like to say that they're agnostics. I find this, the reason I'm talking about this is because there are a lot of people who try to hide their religiosity behind a facade of agnosticism or doubt. A few days ago on my livestream, someone came and said, it's okay. It's good to say that you don't know. It's good to say that you have no idea whether God exists or not. That is the beginning of true knowledge. And this person was absolutely sure... he was very happy that I was saying that I don't know. But this person was absolutely sure that God exists and said that he had experienced God. So when it comes to acknowledging and appreciating doubt, or agnosticism, these people are extremely okay with it. Yeah, you have all the doubt in the world. You who are on the side that thinks that we should not believe things without evidence, you should have doubt. I on the other hand have absolute certainty about the fact that the completely illogical claim I'm making about reality is absolutely true. And these will also be the people who will say that agnostic atheism is not an actual position, which it is, it is an actual philosophic position. Agnostic atheism means I don't know, therefore I do not believe it is a full circle there. No holes in it. If I don't know something, why would I believe in it? Agnosticism only makes sense -at least from my perspective- when it leads to lack of belief. If agnosticism is just agnosticism it is I think veiled religiosity. It is veiled theism. It is a kind of noncommittal belief. If that makes any sense. That's just what I wanted to talk about. Thanks.

Have you noticed something interesting about how people who try to defend culture often complain about culture getting lost or destroyed? On the one hand, it is actually impossible for culture to get destroyed because culture is continuously evolving and new cultural elements are being created with every passing second. So culture itself is not going anywhere, but people complain about culture getting destroyed quite often, and religions in. Are always saying that we are under attack. Why is this? Have you ever wondered in any society I. Religions occupy a position of power and the people who are on the side of religion or people who are in charge of propagating it or making sure that other people follow their religion or bringing in more people into that religion. These people are always on the, like, you will never find a religious person who says sub . Everything is okay. People are following their religion. Everything is good. It's always some kind of a challenge. Presented as the biggest problem that is happening, right? People always say key. Uh, we are being attacked. We are being, uh, insulted, we are being undermined, we are being, uh, defamed, et cetera, et cetera. And. You do it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these are things that you are right now able to see all around you. In most cases, the people who say this in any society are members of the dominant religious community. So in America, it'll be Christians in Pakistan, it'll be Muslims. In India, it'll be Hindus always que we are losing, we are under attack, we are being threatened and everything. Why is this the case? Because. Religions are in the business of . means complete control of a sort. Uh, it does not literally mean that I'm just paraphrasing because I'm, I have not written anything down. I just wanted to share a thought. Religions are the, in the business of complete control. If you let an organized religion into the public sphere, it'll by default, Try to control everything from education to politics, to science to medicine, to which side of the road people should walk on. What kind of jobs should people do, what kind of lives should people, le lead, et cetera. So this is by default any organized religions ultimate goal control over everything. So it is not really surprising when even. A religion controls 99% of a society. That 1% dent that is being made by values that are irreligious will be seen as an overwhelmingly powerful and offensive attack against religion. Religions will never have complete control because frankly, they're based on outdated. And therefore religions will never be able to say that everything is okay, because unless they control everything, they will always have to say that uh, we are under attack. Something is being taken away from us. People are undermining my influence.

An attempt to push back against the narrative that the body is profane or less important than the spirit or the soul.

One of the dominant strains of skepticim in the subcontinent is rationalism. It involves going after superstitions and irrationality wherever they may raise their heads. But many in India hesitate to engage with religion. This episode is about why it is important to resist religion. Perhaps more important than any individual bit of irrationality.

Storytelling has been the backbone of human civilisation for a long time. It has given rise to tales that have changed the world and influenced generations of human beings and their nations. This is perhaps why we often mistake them for history - the actual past. This episode is about disambiguation.

Believers seem to have a great amount of difficulty adjusting to the reality that they are looking at the universe through a human-coloured lens. This is perhaps why they ask "who created everything?" without often considering that the question might as well be "how did everything come into being?" or "what caused it all?". In this episode, I point out that this line of argument should be stopped right at the first word - the "who" part. Alsom I am using a synthetic version of my own voice in this episode. This is just an experiment. My normal voice will return from the next episode onwards. 

The human condition is something philosophers have wrestled with since long. It occurred to me that perhaps I should get in the ring as well. And when I did, I found that our existence is framed by two unforgiving constants - the love that we need to have to make society work, and the need to kill in order to survive.

The question about identity is something that has obsessed people for ages. Are we humans? Are we Indians? Are we Canadian-Indians? Are we men or women or bipeds or life forms? Are we Hindus or Muslims or Christians or Atheists? Perhaps we are all of these things. Is there any clear answer to this at all? I am not saying I have an answer. But what I can do is break the question down.

Atheism is a rejection of god. But what happens when even religious people shrug their shoulders and say "that's okay". This is quite common in India, and yet, there are aspects of Hinduism which do correspond with what we understand to be atheism. This episode is an attempt at disambiguation.

This podcast is meant to be a closer look at atheism in India and the various dynamics that control its perception, spread, and even its definitions.