What is Life? Is it inevitable?

Is life an inevitable consequence of planetary evolution? By 'life' I do not just mean complex organic life. It could be something simpler like a reverberating, intergalactic, electromagnetic field that propagates, replicates or does simple calculations. Or, a virus in a machine! Can we call a computer program that propagates, replicates and morphs itself, life? I would say that it is as alive as a traditional organic virus. A biologist might argue that life needs nucleic acids, the common build-language of all species on Earth. Then, what about prions? Proteinaceous infectious particles do not need even need a DNA or even a string of RNA but is just an evil twist in their structure.
What is the one defining character of life? Is it the potential to replicate? Is it the potential to evolve? Is it the ability to become without the help of a sentient being?

Like most abstract concepts, 'life' is definition-dependant. A thing is alive or dead based on how the observer defines it. It takes birth at that very moment. A piece of writing or a song that goes round and round in your head could also be called life. Don't you agree?

The argument in favor of religion

If the human race was to survive forever, the retrogressive nature of beliefs might indeed be required! Here goes the (warped?) logic.

A hundred or so years back, human life expectancy was hardly 40 years. Now, with advancements in technology and medical science, we are now pushing eighty years in developed countries. However, despite the ravages of nature and diseases, the human race in the pre-technological era was never threatened to extinction by any one enemy. It is true that millions died due to diseases now known to be preventable or treatable. But no single force, not even pandemics, had the potential to wipe out the entire race. On the other hand, advancements in science and technology have thrown up challenges that have the potential to destroy the human race and even life on earth. Take the nuclear bomb, for example. Nuclear technology is a direct consequence of the great strides we made in theoretical physics during the early part of the twentieth century. The breakthrough in discovering how to liberate the energy from the conversion of mass is truly revolutionary, and it has probably a hundred good uses too. Many thousands have derived benefits from nuclear power and medical isotopes. At the same time, the world has been perilously close to nuclear holocaust during the Cold War. In fact, the risk was so high that many consider it to be a miracle that it never happened. The risk of a global nuclear holocaust is so forbidding that if we, as a race, were given a choice and knew the probabilities beforehand, we might have given up discovering nuclear energy itself. Now that nuclear physics is fait accompli, any such discussion is only theoretical or pedantic.

We can extend these thoughts though. What if humans continue to accumulate knowledge and scientific breakthroughs at an ever increasing pace? It is only a matter of time before we discover newer forms of energy or more modern ways to release energies many higher orders of magnitude than which we have discovered yet. All those breakthroughs could be turned into deadly weapons – weapons that can annihilate everything in this planetary system in a few seconds. Currently, a nuclear weapon can only be manufactured by advanced nations with a lot of money. What if technological breakthroughs occur that allow even a high school science team to tap into such energy sources? How will governments control the spread of such knowledge? Apparently, if one could manufacture a weapon that could melt the planet in a backyard lab, life on earth could be threatened by a terrorist, mad scientist, or a disgruntled commoner. Or the end of the world could happen because of an experiment that went wrong.

An energy weapon is just an example. There are others. A race threatening technology could just as well be the product of other scientific pursuits like genetic engineering, microbe redesigning, or artificial intelligence. A technological singularity could arise any moment and result in total loss of control over the way science is built, refined and utilized by human beings. A new form of intelligence or beings could evolve that replace humans as the dominant species on earth. Such an eventuality is inevitable unless the version of the future where destruction by a weapon system plays out instead. In both versions, the human race becomes mostly extinct or irrelevant.  We could argue that scientific progress and technological advancement are more important that even the survival of humans as a species. If we subscribe to the reason that sacrificing the interests of our species is essential for the betterment of science, then are we not worshipping science in a manner that would make even the fiercest religions envious?!

What is the alternative? All ultra-conservative religions have a visceral dislike for science. Science and modern education are an anathema to religion, and the reverse is also true. So the alternative would be a religion that strikes at the very roots of science. A religion with ideological constructs so infective that most of the worlds’ society accepts that faith. The principles of that religion would prohibit higher education and any scientific pursuit. Societies would slowly slide into the dark ages as we gradually unlearn scientific prowess. Diseases, forces of nature and poverty would consume many. Maybe, after an initial period of catastrophic decadence, we would stabilize as an agricultural society with little interests in automation and technology. Art might still survive and flourish. Battles would continue to be fought, primarily for expanding the super-religion. Conflicts would be bloody, brutal and hand to hand, but never having the potential to kill the planet.  Life expectancy would drop worldwide. We would accept all those negatives as sacrifices an individual have to make for the benefit of religion and belief (read, race). 

Human race would survive, probably indefinitely, till the sun goes out.

Indian census 2011. Is 'no caste' an option?

You have the freedom not to declare your caste. Hope everyone is aware of that. Small mercy from the Govt!

Non believers across the world: Any study from India?

Country	Total country population (2004)	% Atheist/ Agnostic/ Nonbeliever in God	Number of Atheists/ Agnostics Nonbelievers in God (minimum - maximum)
Sweden	8,986,000	46 - 85%	4,133,560 - 7,638,100
Vietnam	82,690,000	81%	66,978,900
Denmark	5,413,000	43 - 80%	2,327,590 - 4,330,400
Norway	4,575,000	31 - 72%	1,418,250 - 3,294,000
Japan	127,333,000	64 - 65%	81,493,120 - 82,766,450
Czech Republic	10,246,100	54 - 61%	5,328,940 - 6,250,121
Finland	5,215,000	28 - 60%	1,460,200 - 3,129,000
France	60,424,000	43 - 54%	25,982,320 - 32,628,960
South Korea	48,598,000	30 - 52%	14,579,400 - 25,270,960
Estonia	1,342,000	49%	657,580
Germany	82,425,000	41 - 49%	33,794,250 - 40,388,250
Russia	143,782,000	24 - 48%	34,507,680 - 69,015,360
Hungary	10,032,000	32 - 46%	3,210,240 - 4,614,720
Netherlands	16,318,000	39 - 44%	6,364,020 - 7,179,920
Britain	60,271,000	31 - 44%	18,684,010 - 26,519,240
Belgium	10,348,000	42 - 43%	4,346,160 - 4,449,640
Bulgaria	7,518,000	34 - 40%	2,556,120 - 3,007,200
Slovenia	2,011,000	35 - 38%	703,850 - 764,180
Israel	6,199,000	15 - 37%	929,850 - 2,293,630
Canada	32,508,000	19 - 30%	6,176,520 - 9,752,400
Latvia	2,306,000	20 - 29%	461,200 - 668,740
Slovakia	5,424,000	10 - 28%	542,400 - 1,518,720
Switzerland	7,451,000	17 - 27%	1,266,670 - 2,011,770
Austria	8,175,000	18 - 26%	1,471,500 - 2,125,500
Australia	19,913,000	24 - 25%	4,779,120 - 4,978,250
Taiwan	22,750,000	24%	5,460,000
Spain	40,281,000	15 - 24%	6,042,150 - 9,667,440
Iceland	294,000	16 - 23%	47,040 - 67,620
New Zealand	3,994,000	20 - 22%	798,800 - 878,680
Ukraine	47,732,000	20%	9,546,400
Belarus	10,311,000	17%	1,752,870
Greece	10,648,000	16%	1,703,680
North Korea	22,698,000	15%	3,404,700
Italy	58,057,000	6 - 15%	3,483,420 - 8,708,550
Armenia	2,991,000	14%	418,740
China	1,298,848,000	8 - 14%	103,907,840 - 181,838,720
Lithuania	3,608,000	13%	469,040
Singapore	4,354,000	13%	566,020
Uruguay	3,399,000	12%	407,880
Kazakhstan	15,144,000	11 - 12%	1,665,840 - 1,817,280
Mongolia	2,751,000	9%	247,590
Portugal	10,524,000	4 - 9%	420,960 - 947,160
USA	293,028,000	3 - 9%	8,790,840 - 26,822,520
Albania	3,545,000	8%	283,600
Argentina	39,145,000	4 - 8%	1,565,800 - 3,131,600
Kyrgyzstan	5,081,000	7%	355,670
Dominican Republic	8,834,000	7%	618,380
Cuba	11,309,000	7%	791,630
Croatia	4,497,000	7%	314,790

Source: Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

Is there any disadvantage in being a believer and any advantage in being an atheist (or vice versa) since we are all going to die? JCT's question

Is there any disadvantage in being a believer and any advantage in being an atheist (or vice versa) since we are all going to die. Does being atheistic increase the enjoyment derived from life (or is it the opposite)? [JCT's question from the comments section of last post]

I believe that there must be some form of advantage to the individual to be a believer since evolution has favored it in the majority. May be blind belief in an entity larger than life would have enabled a survival advantage in do or die situation, say in a brutal war of domination. Soldiers of the god fearing, ready-to-be-martyr –life-after -death believing tribe may show greater efficiency in killing the enemy compared to resource wise identical soldiers who does not have such beliefs to defend. This is assuming that there is a genetic and hence phenotypic basis for the need to believe in god. So this tribe that showed exceeding efficiency in killing and dominating now has the opportunity in spreading their ‘superior’ genes and hence the phenotype that makes their progeny believe in god.

I hope you have read the one where I compared the emotional load on the agnostic surgeon versus that of the theist surgeon after the loss of a patient. Again there may be some balm in explaining away to another entity when it is actually your actions that caused a disaster.

Yes. I think there are some advantages in being a believer.

However, this advantage conferred to the individual or the tribe may come with a price for the species in the long term. By long term, I mean the time when technology has sufficiently advanced that the tribes possess weapons that can destroy each other completely that there is no domination for either: the nuclear age.
I am pretty sure that if the cold war standoff was between nuclear armed Christians versus equally capable Islamic bloc instead of between capitalist and communists, we would have been reading this blog in a nuclear winter now.
Religion allows such blind rage that nuclear holocaust would have been assured. No logic , not even that of mutual assured destruction would have stood against the blind fury of religious beliefs.

Joy in life:
I believe that joy in life is independent of your belief in god or the lack of it. Some people are happy and some are less so. People are born with a level of happiness that remains remarkably constant despite their belief systems or their socio-economic situation. I personally believe in the hedonic treadmill theory of happiness.
But definitely, there will be lot less unnecessary guilt in the mind of an agnostic compared to the superstitious god fearing individual. [moral values being equal]

Are we all going to die?

Certainly! Even the stars die.
[The theists are born again, live and die happily ever after. Its game all over for the atheist. Ha!]

However I am working on the brain download thing for you!

What about pantheism?

However non theistic it may be, it is a reflection of the human mind that seeks to find meaning in life and nature - as if there is some greater meaning or direction towards which we are all going and what we are part of.
Is it not possible that there is none? I'd like to believe that there is no real reason or greater objective in the way nature plays out. There is no 'greater purpose'. And I am not nihilistic when I say that.

(answering JCT's question)

Does the Indian Government force its citizens to be religious? A few right-to-information questions.

What is secularism?

It is separation of state machinery from religion.

Indian state is secular. However, does it unwittingly encourage religions when it is not supposed to be (atleast when it is supposed to be neutral)? Does it give adequate space to those citizens who would like to identify with no religion or those who would like to give up their association with religions they are 'born into'.

How do you find all these answers?
Why does the Government ask for your religion every other second?

I wanted to find out.
So I thought I'd file a few right-to-info questions to start with. The Govt of India havent yet answered these questions. Ill upload the answers as they come in.

But do take a look at the questions...

1.What are the government documents which require an applicant or a citizen to reveal his religion and caste?

2.Is it obligatory on part of the applicant to fill details of his religion and caste in government documents, applications and forms?

3.If the applicant chooses to leave these areas blank, will that invalidate his application?

4.Are citizens of India free NOT to choose a relgion and disown his caste eventhough by birth or by birth certificate belongs to one?

5.Is it obligatory on the individual to mention religion and caste in birth certificate of one's children?

6.Is it against the law if a private organisation rejects an application solely because the fields of religion or caste were left blank? If it is against the law, are there any exceptions? Which are these organisations and what are these applications? What course of law can be used against such a rejection?

7.Are there separate lists of religions and castes recognised by the Government of India? Please provide me those lists.

8.Is it valid to enter descriptions of 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'not applicable' in the fields of religion and 'not applicable' in the field of caste in any government application, form or document?

9.Is it valid to enter descriptions of 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'not applicable' in the fields of religion and 'not applicable' in the field of caste in any application, form or document of non-governmental organisations based in India?

10.If India is a secular country, does that give its citizens the right NOT to believe in any god eventhough by birth he/she may belong to one religion?

11.If one's birth certificate , matriculation certificate and other certificates indicate one's religion and caste, are there any legal means to exclude or delete them from these certificates to indicate one's absence of belief in a personal god, religion and caste?

12.If my child's (minor's) birth certificate and other certificates indicate religion and caste, are there any legal means to exclude or delete them from these certificates to indicate that my child is not brought up with a belief in a personal god, religion and caste?

13.Does Indian government ask for details such as religion and caste even if they are not relevant for the pupose of caste and religion based reservation? What purpose is acheived by such enquiries? Are any efforts made to exclude questions asking for such details if they are not relevant?

14.Does the Indian government encourage the practice of religion over non- practice of one? Or is the government neutral to either the practice or non-practice of religion?

15.Does the Government of India encourage identification and classification of its citizens by religion and caste? If not, what steps are being taken to reduce the divisive effects of religion and caste in society in general and government institutes in particular?

16.Does any wing of the government require an individual to swear in the name of god? What are these occasions when a person is required to swear in the name of god? Are there any alternatives if the person does not believe in god?

17.Does the Government of India have any official views on the existance or non-existance of God? Is it funding any scientific or philosophical investigation into the question of existance of God? If so, what are the results of theses investigations?

18.Does secular Indian government encourage the use of religious symbolism in official buildings? Does it forbid the use of explicit religious symbolism in government funded architechture when it is not related to a place of worship?

19.Does the Government encourage teaching of religion in Government schools or government aided schools? Does it include religious teaching in textbooks? If so, which religions are taught? What is the basis of choosing which religions are to be taught? When and which government bodies formulated these stipulations. Who were the experts invoved in formulating such guidelines, if any?

20.Is it Govenment's policy to encourage teaching of the belief in god in school children? If so which God of what religion are school children encouraged to believe in through textbooks?

21.Does the Government believe that teaching of moral values in school children is desirable? If yes,is it inextricably linked to belief in god or is it taught independant of the need to believe in God?

22.What is the yearly Government expenditure on religious activities? What are the type of these activities and please inform me the break up of the expenditure.

23.What is the result of the latest census with regard to the percentages of Indian citizens who belong to various religions? What percentage of indian citizens do not believe in any god according to that census or any other census? Was there ever a government mediated census in which it was specifically asked for non-belief in any god or non-identification with any religion?

24.When is the next country wide census planned? Is there a question enquiring about a person's religion or caste in the planned census? Is there a question specifically asking for non-belief in god and non-identification with any religion inorder to accommodate and account for atheists and agnostics? If such a question is not planned, how does an atheist or agnostic express his non-belief in god and non-identification with any religion? Will that not result in misrepresentation of such groups under various religions eventhough such individuals have made a conscious decision not to belong to any religion? Can he/she write 'atheist', 'agnostic' or simply leave the field blank?

Sometimes there is despair. Is life worth no struggle?

Life is a biological entity with limited lifespan and terminates when there is progressive deterioration of its mental subsystems beyond certain arbitrarily defined points.

No soul. No life after death. No judgment day.

A purely physical explanation despite our longing for something more enduring. Is there reason for despair? Yes, may be. Is life worth no struggle? Why we rat race when there is nothing permanent?

Because... you need to struggle to stay happy even in this impermanence. "Now" is everything.

May be we should be happy with this... Whatever you do is settled in not more than a hundred and ten years from now. Lets have no regrets to brood for. No guilty feeling to launder in the church.

For those die hard life-after-death wishers ... wait a few more decades and we might just be able to download your minds and memories into something less carbon based and you might live longer in a cyberworld like in the 'matrix' or may be like the 'lawn mover man'...

Why "Sun God"? Is God beyond science?

Just an explanation why i wrote about the Sun God one post below...
This is also the reason why i prefer to call this blog 'Agnostic India' rather than 'Atheistic India'.

I just wanted to, for a moment, consider the outside possibility of the existence of a supernatural being that created our universe and is watching over us... that is 'God'. The intellectual and physical differences are comparable to the differences found in a bacterium and a human scientist studying them. Is it ever possible for a bacterium in the petridish to realize that it is being grown and is being studied?

One could theoretically argue that the differences between a human and God are such that there is no conceivable way of ever knowing or 'proving' the existance of God. Since everything is being controlled by god, even our scientific instruments, protons, photons and all possible particles, why even the very nerve cells which we use to think, there is no way we can prove or disprove the existance of God. God is beyond science.

Is this possible. Of course yes.
Isn't it a sad situation? Of course it is!

Are Atheist "negative people"?

Are they? What do you think?
No God. No Heaven. No Afterlife.
Then what is left?
Isn't this a negative thought?
Superficially, yes. Especially to someone who believes in those stuff strongly all their life.

But truth is truth.
Truth is in Now. Truth is what you can see, feel and measure. There is nothing negative once you accept certain facts which appeal to one's logic though you could imagine better alternatives. [heaven with immortality and endless happy hours of beer!]

Most importantly atheism is NOT an "anti-religion". Its just a disbelief in God. And atheist has no business campaigning for his cause (except at this site ;-) He/she is happy in his beliefs. Let him/her be...

Sun God

He looked up into the sky and watched the sun till it blinded him. His was a happy family in a burgeoning community. Lots of food for everybody's greed! They fermented with merry and were truly workaholic. But he knew this was too good to be true. He believed in the stories of people being taken away and left under the searing sun for the rest of their lives. Some came back half dead. Most believed that this sun god was kind and infinitely benevolent. They ridiculed his paranoia. Good times were here to stay. No more of hard survival near the garbage dump. The warmth of this palace of glass which their ancestors had found, had magical powers. Sugar would rain down day and night and no one slept hungry.

 

He suspected a pattern of pervasive planning.  Life cannot be this easy! There must be a diabolic twist latent in  all the goodness. Infinite goodness has only source – pure evil. This, he strived to prove.

 

So he and his friend dug through tons of sugar and let it dry. They made huge glaciers of sugary glass lenses that would catch the sun god on the ground. It would take a lifetime of futile effort – his elders thought. But in the end he succeeded.

 

The bacterial community couldn't believe what they saw. There was no mistaking the black silhouette of the microscope watching over them while blinding them with light.

 

A new religion was born…

 

They worked harder in sad silence ever after.

Is there a very small possibility that God exists?

There is varying possibility for the existence of every single entity that you can imagine. Because thats what possibilities are all about. Hence this is what a strong agnostic would argue for. What if God is so complex that it is beyond the ability of human beings to ever fathom it, let alone prove or disprove it. That's an unfortunate possibility. Unfortunate because then, we have to assume that we are being grown by a being so complex that there is no way of knowing that being. Worse still, most of those God fearing persons will tell you that this being actually watches over each one of us and punishes or rewards our actions! Thats a bad situation!

But what if there is a God and you dont believe in him?

Yes. This is the only reason why you should believe in God!
Because if your definition of God is an all mighty force built on the image of a human subject to the same whims, fancies and ego of man, then you better believe in him.

Is death reversible?

Not if you accept the definition of death i alluded to before: the irreversible deterioration of the bilological system which goes beyond an arbitrary limit.

However it may be possible to change the definition itself. Its possible that we can preserve the biological system, that is the body, and wait for science to evolve to such an extent in the future that the deterioration once believed to be irreversible can be corrected and enough biological functions of the organism may be recovered "bring the person back to life". Efforts are already on as in the cryosuspension programs.

A person who wakes up from un-responsive comatose stage after a head injury or stroke has actually gone close to the arbitary limit which we have set for death and then recovered enough function to become self aware. There may be permanant change to his mental faculties and physical functions as a result of the neurological damage. Yet he continues to "live" and is identified as the same person by his relatives.

All this just goes on to prove that the human brain is just a biological system, a very complex one, that as long as it functions, gives the manifestation of life. If its destroyed, life ends. There is no soul. There is nothing after death.

Death

How do you define this singularity called death?

Its easier done once we accept that all humans, in fact, all known living organisms are biological systems. Death is the point where irreversible deterioration of the biological system crosses and continues beyond a defined limit. This limit is defined according to how far medical science has advanced. Decades back, stopping of respiratory function and cardiac functions were necessary to declare death. Now we know that irreversible cessation of brain stem functions is enough to declare that a person is dead and there are many tests to determine that.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is a soul which exists independent of the physical body we have. The soul is the mental image of self-awareness and this is a function of the intact brain.

What happens to you after death?
The question itself is meaningless since the entity called "you" has ceased to function permanently and is no longer in a position to appreciate anything in the physical world.

So then what is life?
Life is the sum total of your retrievable memories, your active thought processes based on previous experiences and intellect and the collage of sensory stimuli that you experience as a result of your interaction with the physical world.

Are we willing to give up more?

Why should you give up more irrational beliefs like life after death, reincarnation, heaven, judgment day etc? Simply because it frees your mind.

Will that make you less moral and compassionate?

It is more likely to be the other way around. Your moral mind is independent of some abstract un-provable irrational concept. Its not that you will start to kill and rape once you are freed of the need to believe in a supreme being and a judgement day. Will people become desperados once they realise that there is absolute nothingness once you are dead? And that the dead remain dead forever?

Many of the morally unscrupulous are highly religious. Most of the conflict and senseless killing are actually because people strongly believe in their God(s).

Why do people believe in God?

Is there a biological reason that majority of human beings believe in God or gods? Is it genetic? Is it hidden away somewhere in the brain - the so called God center? Are we really hard wired to believe in such a scientifically untenable concept?

Well, i think so.

There might be two factors at work

1. Its 'intuitive'. Since just about everything is created by something. There must be a creator. A creator must be as realistic as your parents. Evolution is a counter-intuitive concept taught in school.
2. Evolutionary advantage must be considered for the reason why most people believe in God. May be there is some form of natural selection that favors the genetic make up that codes for the brain phenotype that is susceptible to believing in such an entity.This second reason is what I would like to analyze.
   

A person who is an atheist takes direct responsibility for his actions and omissions.

Consider two surgeons operating on a patient. Both are highly skilled and takes great care operating. And something goes terribly wrong... The atheist surgeon, even though he believes that he has taken utmost care, knows that it is some action of his that caused the undesirable result. That action may not even be obvious. The intensity of the unknown error should weigh heavier on him than the theist surgeon who can take refuge by believing that he did his best but God or fate had other plans.

Does this psychological cushion translate into a small but definite survival advantage for the theist ?

Atheist? Agnostic? or Ignostic?

So where do we stand?

I would like to dedicate this space for encouraging people to give up their religion and escape from the 'need to believe in God'.

I personally would like to believe in Ignosticism : "the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable"[as wikipedia defines it]

You are welcome to this site to find resources to help escape the 'initial programming' that forces one to believe in a supreme creator or God or gods or deities etc. as the case may be.

Here, you are encouraged to think free, to think differently and independently. By being a agnostic, it eases the turbulence of transition that one may face as you begin the journey of giving up your religion. If you are an atheist, you dont need any help anyway!

I feel there is an urgent need to save the society from the menace of blind religious beliefs and superstition even as the government unwittingly encourages it by supporting secularism.

Lets support deconversion instead.