Arguing the Dogma of Atheism

Religion is often seen as a dogma by atheists who claim to be rationalists (?). Here are some arguments against their claims:

The phrase 'imagined divinity' can be argued as unlike atheists there has been many persons across centuries and borders, who have direct experience of divinity themselves and also have helped others experience it. As for as 'imagined' is concerned, science is also not absolute but based on conditions and even use imaginary numbers for establishing theories. Can scientists prove the existence of imaginary and complex numbers which is an integral part of science? A scientist would say 'they do exist. A mathematician will understand' but a layman will not, to him an imaginary number is as absurd as is the idea of God to an atheist. Same argument applies to a Vedantist as well, he can also say Brahman can be understood by another Yogi having direct experience. Another example is string theory which has no direct proof but many scientists accept it. Same logic can be applied to Brahman. There are many such scientific theories which can be argued upon on this ground. Like the unknown bands i.e. the U-V and I-R rays, over and below the known visible wave bands, there are realms which do not appear to naked eyes, but that does not mean they are imaginary.

So it is always better to say 'I do not know' i.e. being agnostic. An atheist/ rationalist is equally a chauvinist as a theist or fanatic because he makes claims which he can't prove and he disproves direct experience because he himself can't experience it. The logic of Russell's teapot can also be argued here. An ant doesn't see lot of things in our world. It is another dimension and non-existing for the ant, but reality for humans. So based on evolution both physical and psychological, the understanding of the universe changes. But atheist dogma accepts the tea-pot in case of scientific theories but not in case of God, which is a fallacy!!

Vedanta can always be differentiated from any theology across the world based on its inherent philosophical nature which most religions lack. As long as one focuses on this philosophy, religious perversion will be negligible. The basis of Hinduism has been this Vedanta philosophy. However, due to constant attacks by foreign forces and their millenia-long exploitation, Hindu attitude towards other religions have changed. They have brought in dogmas and perversions to protect the religion from these external attacks. Also gradual degradation within the Indian society at much later stage of the Vedic culture (which is common to any civilization) have misrepresented this ancient but transcendental philosophy. But the philosophy has nothing to do with collective attitude or external manifestation due to foreign impacts. It is for inner development. This is why Vedantism stands out. In fact, the Vedanta philosophy is so strong that while its contemporary and even later civilizations and religions like Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Persians, Greeko-Romans have all been lost in oblivion, Vedantism exists gloriously on the face of this earth. Despite repeated attacks physical as well as intellectual, none could eliminate Vedanta philosophy and the culture associated with it.

This has been possible because Vedantism is one philosophy is all-inclusive (Sanatana dharma). It even accepts atheism, nothing is impossible here, everything can be doubted, questioned, argued, proved and accepted. Swami Vivekananda doubted his teacher and his teachings till the latter breathed his last. He did not want to believe his teacher without direct proofs which his teacher furnished to his satisfaction. Vivekananda went on to become one of the greatest philosophers and Vedantist the world has ever known. A Vedantist is similar to a scientist who does not believe without direct experience and logic. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Adi Shankaracharya bowed the country's intellectuals in those days to their logic first and not mere faith. They argued logically with theists and atheists both. India gave birth to world's first philosophy called Samkhya, an atheistic philosophy at the beginning and then gradually moved to divinity. The grand unified or one force field theory which is the latest in modern science is the very basis of spiritual realizations.

Religion is a must requirement for week minds without which they will cease to have ethics and morality. Religion is a platform for the quest of an evolved mind which uses the philosophical aspect of it for self-introspection. So religion is required for both.

Culture has the impact of religion. Hence religion shapes morality. But it is individual choice to be moral or immoral. But with people of lower education, religion has mostly been successful is establishing morality. An atheist when chooses to be corrupt has nothing to fear except the law of land but a religious man has the fear of god as well which keeps a moral check on him. 

 

Morality is definitely not a constant factor and is rather ever-changing and ever-evolving. But there are certain aspects of morality which are absolute despite the circumstances. A willful act of crime is always worth punishment no matter on what intent it was done except for self-protection (here self includes individual, country and humanity). With growing understanding of nature and evolution of mind (in some cases devolution though), definition of morality changes as the logic of the mind changes but in no way it can violate human existence and existence of life in general. For Arjuna the war of Kurukshetra was immoral but Krishna explained it logically and made it moral to Arjuna. But Krishna himself refrained from active warfare as considering his mythical powers it would have been immoral towards the enemy depriving them of a just defense. This is what slave owners and Nazis lacked the power of judgement. They lacked it because they never understood the meaning of religion hence were not moral. 

With understanding of religion, good judgement, morality and ethics are bound to develop. Without such understanding a person cannot be called religious no matter how many times he visits Church or how rigorously he follows rituals. Hence Hitler and Mussolini cannot be called Christians. They were simply opposite to Christ's character. They merely used the religion as a negative 'default' to fulfill their political goals. The same agenda we can see in world politics especially in India, other South Asian countries, Middle East, USA etc. Atheists love calling them religiously oriented. Considering the character of these individuals, which mismatch with the propagator of the religion to which they belong, they cannot be called followers of those religions. Rather such immorality in exploiting in the name of religion shows, they have no respect or faith in the religion i.e. they disbelieve it which makes them more of atheist as far as the religion is concerned. 

A truly religious man will manifest the perfect and most evolved nature of man which is termed as God but misunderstood as an external entity by general population. If an expansion of 'imagination' say makes a human being all the more better, it is a better welcome platform than a dry atheist!

Atheism definitely cannot be equated with communism, but when atheism promotes disbelief that itself becomes its religion. This is where the dogma of atheism lies.