Is God Dead?

(An Introduction to Kya ishwar mar chuka hai?)

Dr. Ramendra Nath
Reader, Department of Philosophy, Patna College
Patna University
Originally published by the Buddhiwadi Foundation
216-A, S.K.Puri, Patna !! !!1, Bihar, "ndia
#le$troni$ally reprinted here with per%ission.
Foreword Pre&a$e
Introduction
"Is god dead?" This is the literal meaning of the Hindi title of my oo! on atheism, Kya
ishwar %ar $hu'a hai? This small, Hindi oo! "as "ritten y me in #$ne %&'% as a
st$dent of (. ). *Philosophy+ in Patna University.
,ya ish"ar mar -h$!a hai?, "hi-h is my first p$lished oo!, "as "ritten y me in
fifteen days. Tho$gh I a-t$ally "rote it in fifteen days, I had een thin!ing ao$t it for
ao$t fo$r years, that is, sin-e I .oined Patna College as a st$dent of /. ). *Hons.+. I had
opted for philosophy as my hono$rs s$.e-t. Philosophy of religion "as also a part of o$r
sylla$s. 0e "ere re1$ired to st$dy in a -riti-al manner vario$s "proofs" for the alleged
e2isten-e of god. This set me thin!ing on the s$.e-t. In addition to st$dying ao$t it in
vario$s oo!s of philosophy of religion, I "as also dis-$ssing this topi- "ith my friends.
I did this delierately to find o$t "hy people generally elieved in the e2isten-e of god.
0hat reasons they had, or they tho$ght they had, for elieving in the e2isten-e of god?
This oo! "as not "ritten y me for s-holars and a-ademi-ians. I "rote it !eeping in
mind an average ed$-ated person. Therefore, I did not ass$me any prior !no"ledge of
philosophy on part of my readers. It "as intended as a "pop$lar" "or!. /e-a$se of this, I
delierately avoided dis-$ssing the "ontologi-al arg$ment" of )nselm, "hi-h, I thin!,
only sophisti-ated "philosophers" *theologians, in fa-t+ -o$ld have imagined. 3n the
other hand, I have dis-$ssed the arg$ment that I en-o$ntered most often in my
dis-$ssions, tho$gh the arg$ment is not fo$nd in the oo!s of philosophy of religion. In
short, the arg$ment goes as follo"s4 "5veryone elieves in the e2isten-e of god,
therefore, god m$st e2ist."
The other arg$ments dis-$ssed y me in the oo!, namely, "the -a$sal arg$ment", "the
teleologi-al arg$ment" and "the moral arg$ment" are generally dis-$ssed -riti-ally in
oo!s of philosophy of religion. I -o$ld have related these arg$ments to philosophers li!e
Des-artes and ,ant. 6imilarly, I -o$ld have related the -riti-ism of these arg$ments, as
"ell as "the prolem of evil", "hi-h I have $sed as the main arg$ment for disproving the
e2isten-e of god, to philosophers li!e 5pi-$r$s, H$me and /ertrand R$ssell. Ho"ever, I
did not -ite any philosopher or s-holar in s$pport of my vie"s, or do-$ment my oo!,
e-a$se, as mentioned earlier, it "as not intended as a s-holarly "or!, $t as a pop$lar
"or!. /esides, tho$gh many of the arg$ments $sed y me "ere $sed earlier y
disting$ished philosophers, I had $sed them after ma!ing them my o"n. I "anted to ta!e
f$ll responsiility for the arg$ments $sed y me. In short, I "rote the oo! as an original,
arg$mentative "or! for general readers.
Tho$gh I have not do-$mented the te2t of my "or!, or mentioned any names of
philosophers and s-holars in it, the oo! -ontains a small iliography in "hi-h I have
mentioned the names of /ertrand R$ssell7s 0hy I am not a Christian, 8ora7s )n )theist
"ith 8andhi and #ohn Hospers7 )n Introd$-tion to Philosophi-al )nalysis. /esides, I
have mentioned Dr. 9. (asih7s s-holarly "or! in Hindi titled Nireesh"ar"ad /hartiya
a$r Pas-hatya *)theism Indian and 0estern+.
In the first edition of the oo!, "hi-h "as p$lished in %&':, I had not dis-$ssed "the
arg$ment from spe-ial events and e2perien-es". I added this arg$ment in the se-ond
revised and e2panded edition p$lished in %&&:. I also added the name of Dr. ).T.
,ovoor7s oo! /egone 8odmen in the iliography. *I "as a-1$ainted "ith all these
oo!s efore I "rote ,ya ish"ar mar -h$!a hai?+
;
The title of my "or! "as ased on Niet<s-he7s famo$s statement "god is dead". I .$st
too! this as an interesting starting point and "ent on to arg$e that there "as no 1$estion
of god dying e-a$se he "as never orn= The -entral idea of my oo! as mentioned in the
introd$-tion of the first edition is that ""e do not have a single logi-al arg$ment for
elieving in the e2isten-e of god, "hereas "e have logi-al arg$ments for elieving in the
non> e2isten-e of god. Therefore, god is the iggest s$perstition of h$man!ind. )nd it is
logi-ally "rong and morally harmf$l to ase o$r philosophy of life on a s$perstition."
The fa-t that I too! Niet<s-he7s statement as my starting point led some persons to
elieve that my "or! "as inspired or infl$en-ed y Niet<s-he. 3ne .o$rnalist "ent on to
"rite that my oo! "as a translation of Niet<s-he7s ideas= In fa-t, I have not at all een
inspired or infl$en-ed y Niet<s-he. )part from the title, my oo! or my ideas have
nothing to do "ith Niet<s-he. (y favo$rite philosopher is /ertrand R$ssell to "hom I
have dedi-ated the oo!.
The meaning of "god"
In the rief, first -hapter of my oo! "0hat is ?god7?" *"?Ish"ar7 !ya hai?"+, I have $sed
the familiar method of philosophi-al analysis. The main idea of this -hapter is that "e
m$st -larify the meaning of the "ord "god," efore dis-$ssing the 1$estion of the
e2isten-e of god. I have maintained that sin-e the "ord "god" is already eing $sed in the
lang$age, "e m$st not stip$late any aritrary meaning of "god" from o$r side, $t rather
try to find o$t the p$li- or le2i-al meaning of the term. )--ording to me, the "ord "god"
is $sed mainly in the sense of "the -reator of this "orld." "8od" is regarded as "the
omnis-ient, omnipotent, enevolent -reator, maintainer and destroyer of this "orld." I
have stated very -learly that I have $sed the "ord "god" in my oo! in this sense only.
Those "ho $se the "ord "god" in some different sense end $p merely -onf$sing others as
"ell as themselves.
Does god exist?
The se-ond -hapter of my oo!, titled "Does god e2ist?"*",ya ish"ar hai?"+, is the
longest of the three -hapters of the oo!. In a "ay it is the main part of the oo!, tho$gh I
-onsider the third -hapter more original. In the se-ond -hapter, I have logi-ally eval$ated
some pop$lar arg$ments for "proving" the e2isten-e of god, namely, the -a$sal arg$ment,
the arg$ment from design, the arg$ment from spe-ial events and e2perien-es, and the
moral arg$ment. /esides, I have dis-$ssed the pop$lar arg$ment mentioned earlier. I have
tried to sho">>and I thin! I have done it s$--essf$lly>>that none of these arg$ments is
logi-ally tenale.
@et $s -onsider, for e2ample, the pop$lar arg$ment4 "5veryone elieves in the e2isten-e
of god, therefore, god m$st e2ist."
I have re$tted this arg$ment, firstly, y denying the tr$th of the premise. It is not tr$e
that everyone elieves in the e2isten-e of god. (any people do not elieve in the
e2isten-e of god, tho$gh persons living in a parti-$lar -$lt$ral atmosphere may not e
a"are of it. 6e-ondly, I have pointed o$t that the -on-l$sion does not follo" from the
premise. )t one time almost everyone elieved that the earth is flat, $t today "e all
!no" that it is ro$nd. The fa-t that a elief is "idespread proves nothing e2-ept that the
elief is "idespread.
The -a$sal arg$ment, too, -an e disposed off 1$ite easily. The arg$ment egins y
asserting that "every effe-t m$st have a -a$se" and ends $p y -laiming that "god is the
$n-a$sed -a$se of the $niverse". Th$s, the premise of the arg$ment is -ontradi-ted y its
-on-l$sion.
(ost of $s elieve in the e2isten-e of god not e-a$se "e have any good reason for doing
so $t only e-a$se "e are ta$ght to do so sin-e o$r -hildhood.
The problem of evil
The main arg$ment $sed y me for disproving the e2isten-e of god is referred to as "the
prolem of evil" in philosophi-al literat$re. In short, the arg$ment is that the idea of an
omnis-ient, omnipotent and enevolent god is logi-ally in-onsistent e-a$se of the
presen-e of the evil in this "orld4
"The presen-e of evil in this "orld is a harsh tr$th "hi-h -annot e denied either y a
theist or y an atheist. H$man eings have to fa-e events li!e earth1$a!e, $rsting of
vol-anoes, flood, -y-lone, epidemi-, famine, starvation>deaths, !illings, rape, "ar, et-.,
from time to time. This -r$el reality is in-ompatile "ith the god of the theists. The idea
of an omnis-ient, omnipotent and enevolent god is rendered in-onsistent y the presen-e
of evil in this "orld. 5very year so many inno-ent persons are !illed e-a$se of nat$ral
disasters. Is god not a"are of this? If he is not, then he -annot e regarded as omnis-ient.
No", if god !no"s ao$t these evils, "hy he is not removing them? If god "ants to
eliminate these evils $t is not ale to do so, he -annot e omnipotent. If he -an remove
these evils $t still does not do so, then he is not enevolent, and he is also not fit for
eing "orshipped y $s. )nd if god is -apale of removing these evils, and he also "ants
to do so, then "hy these evils e2ist at all? The theists are in-apale of giving any
satisfa-tory reply to this 1$estion."
The free-illist defence
In the se-ond -hapter of my oo! I have also dis-$ssed and re.e-ted some of the attempts
made y the theists for evading the prolem of evil, for e2ample, the free>"illist defen-e.
)--ording to this defen-e, god has given free "ill to h$man eings. The presen-e of evil
in this "orld is o"ing to the mis$se of this free "ill y h$man eings. Therefore, h$man
eings are responsile for the presen-e of evil in this "orld.
The prolem "ith this arg$ment is that it fails to ma!e a distin-tion et"een nat$ral evil
and moral evil. 5arth1$a!es, $rsting of vol-anoes, flood, -y-lone, epidemi-, et-., are
nat$ral evils. 3n the other hand, m$rder, rape and "ar are moral evils for "hi-h h$man
eings -o$ld e held responsile. 5ven if "e a--ept the free>"illist arg$ment, it -an only
e2plain the moral evil and not the nat$ral evil. H$man eings -annot e held responsile
for the nat$ral evil.
6ome theists maintain that god sends nat$ral evil to p$nish h$man eings, e-a$se h$man
eings mis$se their freedom of "ill to perform "rong a-tions. /$t s$-h theists forget that
nat$ral evil has e2isted in this "orld even efore moral evil -ame into e2isten-e.
5arth1$a!es, $rsting of vol-anoes and storms, et-., have e2isted on this earth even
efore h$man eings entered the s-ene. The -a$se of an effe-t -omes efore it and not
after it. Therefore, this arg$ment falls flat. /esides, nothing -o$ld have prevented the
allegedly "omnipotent" god from denying h$man eings the freedom to perform "rong
a-tions. 8od, if he had e2isted, -o$ld have easily -reated h$man eings "ho had the
freedom to perform only right a-tions. It is tr$ly ridi-$lo$s to s$ggest that god first ma!es
h$man eing perform "rong a-tions and, then, p$nishes them for it=
!h" oppose theism?
The third -hapter of my oo! is titled "0hy oppose theism?" *""shwarwad 'a (irodh
'yon?"+. In this -hapter I have tried to sho" that the idea of god is a ig h$rdle
ostr$-ting the gro"th of h$man !no"ledge and morality or, in other "ords, the gro"th
of h$man so-iety. /efore dis-$ssing the harmf$l effe-ts of the -on-ept of god on h$man
-ond$-t, I have riefly dis-$ssed some related do-trines s$-h as the theory of "divine
.$sti-e", fatalism and the theory of in-arnations *a(tarwad+.
#noledge
In this -hapter I have pointed o$t that a 1$estioning mind is an essential pre>re1$isite for
the gro"th of !no"ledge. Theism inhiits the 1$estioning attit$de y providing
oversimplified and ready>made ans"ers to -omple2 1$estions. )s a res$lt, a person
elieving in god is not ale to $nderstand the real -a$ses of the events ta!ing pla-e
aro$nd him or her. He thin!s that everything is eing done y god, and that everything
-an e e2plained in terms of "god". There is no need to sear-h and investigate eyond
this.
6e-ondly, "hen the theists find that they are not ale to defend god from the atta-! of
logi-al and s-ientifi-, anti>god arg$ments of atheistsA they start dis-o$raging logi-al and
s-ientifi- thin!ing itself. In order to preserve the elief in god, they start glorifying "faith"
and "devotion", on one hand, and they try to deval$e the importan-e of reason, on the
other. Instead of en-o$raging freethin!ing, they en-o$rage s$perstitio$s mentality y
saying that "e o$ght to elieve in the e2isten-e of god even tho$gh "e do not have any
eviden-e for doing so. 3n-e "e a--ept the s$perstition of god, the door is thro"n open
for all !inds of s$perstitions.
Thirdly, the follo"ers of theisti- religions regard their o"n religio$s s-ript$res as the
final tr$th, e-a$se, a--ording to them, these s-ript$res -ontain "the "ords of god". This
!ind of lind faith ostr$-ts the gro"th of !no"ledge as is demonstrated y the e2amples
of Coperni-$s, 8alileo and /r$no or even Dar"in, "hose theory of evol$tion "as
opposed y the -h$r-h e-a$se it "ent against the theory of -reation propo$nded in the
/ile
$oralit"
)s far as morality is -on-erned, I have not only re.e-ted the arg$ment that the idea of god
is morally $sef$l, $t I have also pointed o$t the dangers of fo$nding ethi-s on a
s$perstition. (y -ontention is that "e o$ght to develop and pra-ti-e a se-$lar and h$man
morality ased on logi-al and s-ientifi- thin!ing. The idea of god is a st$mling lo-! in
developing morality in the tr$e sense. There is no room for ethi-s in a -onsistent theism.
Th$s, it is not my position that atheists, too, -an e moral or that the idea of god is
$nne-essary for ethi-s. 3n the -ontrary, I have maintained that only an atheist -an e
moral in the tr$e sense of the term. )s I have said4
"5thi-s is a ran-h of philosophy "hi-h ma!es a systemati- and rational st$dy of
important prolems related to morality, $t for the theists "hatever has een -alled
"good" in divine s-ript$res is good, and "hatever has een -alled "ad" in them is ad.
They do not -onsider it ne-essary to thin! anything eyond this on the s$.e-t. 0hen god
has provided a ready>made sol$tion to the prolem, then "hy sho$ld anyone spend ones
mental energy on this=B In the name of morality the theists only -ling to fossili<ed
traditions, "hi-h often have no logi-al fo$ndations. It is possile that in vario$s religio$s
s-ript$res some s$-h a-tions have een -alled "right", "hi-h -o$ld e regarded as right
even from a logi-al point of vie". /$t, on the other hand, in almost all s-ript$res many
s$-h things have een -alled "right", "hi-h are totally "rong from a logi-al and h$man
point of vie". Cor e2ample, the Hind$ s-ript$re (an$>6mriti .$stifies varna>vyavastha
and $nto$-haility, "hi-h are ased on ine1$ality. 6imilarly, Islam does not grant e1$al
rights to man and "oman. In the name of god and s-ript$res, the religio$s
f$ndamentalists oppose so-ial reforms in-l$ding so-ial -hanges in the dire-tion of
e1$ality. In this "ay lind faith in "divine" s-ript$res is a ig h$rdle in the path of so-ial
reforms and in the gro"th of tr$e morality."
/esides, a--ording to theists, god is omnis-ient and omnipotent. Nothing happens in this
"orld "itho$t god7s "ill. *Theists ring in the idea of free "ill only "hen they are fa-e to
fa-e "ith the prolem of evil.+ This !ind of divine determinism leaves no s-ope for
freedom of "ill. 0hat a person "ill do at a parti-$lar time is already pre>determined. /$t
if h$man eings are not free, then they -annot e held morally responsile for their
a-tions. H$man eings -an e held responsile for their a-tions only if they are free to
-hoose among vario$s alternative options. The idea of god !no-!s the ottom o$t of
morality. Th$s, there is no room for freedom of "ill and morality "ithin a -onsistent
theism.
God as a crutch
In the last part of the third -hapter, I have tried to e2plain the "idespread e2isten-e of
elief in god in spite of the idea eing logi-ally in-orre-t and morally harmf$l. I have
listed three reasons for this4 one, mental inertia and relative asen-e of free and -riti-al
thin!ing. T"o, the "rong notion that the idea of god is essential for preserving morality
in so-iety. Three, e-a$se the idea satisfies -ertain psy-hologi-al needs of h$man eings,
tho$gh in a "rong "ay.
I have sho"n that the attit$de of a eliever to"ards god is similar to the attit$de of a -hild
to"ards its parents. "8od is a -r$t-h for "ea! persons, "ho are $nale to fa-e the reality
and "ho al"ays "ant to remain a -hild. )n ad$lt h$man eing sho$ld not need this false
s$pport...If "e "ant to live o$r lives in a proper manner, and if "e "ant to solve o$r
individ$al and so-ial prolems in a sin-ere manner, the first essential pre-ondition is that
"e m$st see o$r prolems as they are, and "e m$st ta!e f$ll responsiility for o$r
f$t$re...0e have to reali<e that so-ial evils are h$man>made, they have nothing to do "ith
the so>-alled god... 0e also have to reali<e that "divine .$sti-e" does not e2ist, and that
god is not going to -ome as an avatar *in-arnation+ to solve o$r prolems, "e have to
solve them o$rselves."
I have -on-l$ded the main te2t of my oo! "ith the follo"ing lines4 "Honesty demands
that instead of han!ering for the false -r$t-h of god, h$man eings stand on their o"n
feetA instead of r$nning a"ay from reality li!e an ostri-h, they fa-e the reality oldly and
s1$arelyA instead of shifting their responsiility on ?god7 and ?fate7, they ta!e their o"n
de-isions "ith a f$ll sense of responsiility, and fa-e the -onse1$en-es of their a-tions in
a old manner."
God in traditional Indian philosoph"
(y oo! also -ontains t"o appendi-es. The first one is titled "8od in traditional Indian
philosophy" *Para%paragat Bhartiya darshan %e ishwar-(i$har+. This part "as e2isting
in the first edition of my oo! as "ell, $t I have almost re>"ritten it for the se-ond
edition, dra"ing heavily from a paper on this s$.e-t that I had prepared for a
philosophi-al -onferen-e. This part of my oo! is f$lly do-$mented. (y aim in this
appendi2 is to disprove the pop$lar myth that traditional Indian philosophy is god>
dominated. I have sho"n that the reality is .$st the opposite. Cive o$t of "nine s-hools of
Indian philosophy" are atheisti-. They are4 @o!ayat, #ainism, /$ddhism, 6an!hya and
(imamsa. Th$s, traditional Indian philosophy is a-t$ally dominated y atheism.
The attac% on reason
The se-ond appendi2 is titled "The atta-! on Reason y (ysti-s" *)ahasyawadion dwara
*ar'buddhi par a'ra%an+. 0hen the theists find that they -annot defend god against
logi-al arg$ments, they start atta-!ing reasoning itself. This atta-! often ass$mes the
form of mysti-ism. /$t the prolem "ith the mysti-s is that they are not only $nale to
demonstrate the o.e-tive validity of the "!no"ledge" that they -laim to possess, $t they
also start -laiming that this "!no"ledge" -annot e e2pressed thro$gh lang$age. I have
s$ggested in this part of my oo! that if this is really so, then the mysti-s o$ght to remain
permanently silent. /e-a$se, a--ording to their o"n admission, if they open their mo$ths
in trying to e2press the ine2pressile, they "ill only $tter senseless senten-es= If "hat the
mysti-s say is tr$e, going "eyond reason" is the first pre>re1$isite for moving -loser to
god. Ho"ever, "e -annot a--ommodate anything that is "eyond reason" in a rationalist>
h$manist philosophy. The mysti-s -laim that the s-ope of reason is "limited". /$t that is
no .$stifi-ation for .$mping into the o-ean of "$nlimited irrationality".
Foreword
/$ddhi"adi Co$ndation is a registered, non>profit, ta2>e2empt, ed$-ational tr$st for
promoting rationalism>h$manism and for eradi-ating lind faith and s$perstitions.
/$ddhi"adi Co$ndation is "or!ing for a philosophi-al revol$tion in the rationalist>
h$manist dire-tion y promoting logi-al>s-ientifi- thin!ing and a se-$lar, rational
morality ased on h$man val$es of lierty, e1$ality and fraternity.
Cor a-hieving the aove>mentioned aims, /$ddhi"adi Co$ndation has de-ided, among
other things, to p$lish literat$re, mainly in Hindi and 5nglish. It has already estalished
the Buddhwadi Study and )esear$h +entre, and an instit$te for promoting -omp$ter
litera-y and s-ientifi- o$tloo!.
"s god dead, is the first oo!let eing p$lished y the /$ddhi"adi Co$ndation. This is
an introd$-tion to Dr. Ramendra7s Hindi oo!, Kya ishwar %ar $hu'a hai, The Hindi
oo! "as p$lished y the /ihar /$ddhi"adi 6ama. in %&':. In fa-t, the /$ddhi"adi
6ama. had started its a-tivities "ith the p$li-ation of this "or!. The oo! "as "ell
re-eived in Hindi. 0e hope that the readers "ill li!e the 5nglish introd$-tion as "ell.
0e than! the Rationalist Co$ndation, ($mai, for e2tending finan-ial assistan-e for
p$lishing this "or!.
,a"al.eet, (anaging Tr$stee, /$ddhi"adi Co$ndation
Preface
0e -an safely assert that most of the h$manists all over the "orld do not elieve in the
e2isten-e of god. They are either atheists or agnosti-s. 9et, there is a vie" among some
h$manists, in-l$ding those "ho themselves do not elieve in the e2isten-e of god, that
h$manists sho$ld leave god alone and -on-entrate on their o"n "positive" eliefs and
a-tivities. It is $seless to "aste ones time and energy in atta-!ing god and other negative
aspe-ts of religion.
I "ant to state very -learly that I do not agree "ith the vie" mentioned aove. In my
oo! Kya ishwar %ar $hu'a hai, *"s god dead,+ I have asserted that the idea of god is a
ig h$rdle ostr$-ting the gro"th of h$man !no"ledge and morality or, in other "ords,
the gro"th of h$man so-iety. Therefore, "e m$st get rid of the god idea. It is, in fa-t, a
very positive thing to do.
The idea of god has many harmf$l -onse1$en-es. )part from ostr$-ting the gro"th of
!no"ledge, the idea of god is a st$mling lo-! in developing morality in the tr$e sense
of the term. In the name of god and "revealed" s-ript$res, the religio$s f$ndamentalists
oppose so-ial reforms in-l$ding -hanges in the dire-tion of e1$ality.
Th$s, the idea of god -annot e ignored as a harmless s$perstition It is not possile for
rationalists and h$manists or for rational h$manists, "or!ing in a god>dominated -$lt$ral
atmosphere, to ignore this idea. If in a parti-$lar so-iety a ma.ority of individ$als have
-eased to elieve in god, then the h$manists of that parti-$lar so-iety may give
-omparatively less importan-e to promoting atheism. /$t in a -o$ntry li!e India
promoting atheism sho$ld form an important part of the h$manist agenda. 3ne need not
e defensive and apologeti- ao$t it.
Ramendra