Thread by @shrikanth_krish

When one reads the arguments of atheists in our times, it invariably centers around the question -

"Does God exist"?

To me it is the wrong question.

A more fundamental question is -

Can man discriminate between right and wrong all by himself? Can he govern himself?

If the answer is an unqualified yes, then there arises an argument for atheism (regardless of whether god exists or not)

If the answer is no, then we need a law to govern man. That law ofcourse cannot be something like a Constitution as Constitutions are made by men

It has to be a religious law which is immutable and implacable, and whose origins are shrouded in time. Let's call this the abrahamic model

Or it can be a "traditional" way of life that has come down through the ages, and has stood the test of time. This model is more amenable to modification and tinkering and adaptation.

Yet it is nevertheless "ancient" and commands reverence.

Let's call this the Indian model.

There are other variants of either model. But these are the two poles.

But what's common to both models is the view that man is not the master of everything he surveys. Human reason has its limits. We don't have the "viveka" to figure out the "right thing" all by ourselves

The counter to both is the view that Man can indeed self-govern. He can make laws. Abrogate them. He can understand context, history, and every nuance that there is

There are no limits to Man

If that's true then you do inevitably move towards an atheistic conception of universe

This faith in human nature is what replaces faith in God.

And faith in human nature also inevitably means faith in discretion, policy, bureaucracy, intelligent design of institutions - in short a Big Brother state

So what the philosophy of "Enlightenment" has led us to is to develop this faith in human nature - a process that has accelerated over the past 300 years

As this faith has increased, the faith in God or the "eternal law" (saNatana Dharma) (as preferred by Indians) has eroded

The faith in human nature tends to disappoint us quite often.

Human nature produces beasts like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Mohammad Atta

So faith in human nature is a dicey thing.

Which makes one wonder -

Why is human nature as good as it is? Why don't we have more Hitlers? More Bin Ladens? More number of Charles Sobhrajs and Jack the Rippers?

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that human nature is conditioned by faith in God or the "eternal law"?

Could it be that "social conditioning" helps men retain their civilization?

In which case, how can we assert that the civilization will endure once the hold of religion and / or tradition erodes?

There are no easy answers to this.

As Man continues to proceed on the path to greater social "liberation", he cedes more and more freedom to the state.

What was once "God's domain" now becomes the domain of the State.

This begs the larger question

Is freedom from fellow men even theoretically possible if one doesnt believe in God?

The inexorable push of "Enlightenment" is to lessen one's faith in God and increase faith in fellow humans - which inevitably causes centralization of power

The challenge of the 21st century is to resolve this paradox of Freedom.

If we seek Freedom from God (or tradition), then you cede freedom to your fellow men.

If you seek freedom from your fellow men, you better surrender to God.

Having said that, the great "Enlightenment" project remains the application of human reason to create things anew. Start off with a fresh slate. So that the old rules don't matter. You make new beginnings.

The conceit here is that the past can be overcome

One instance of this is the idea of Charter Cities by @paulmromer who won the Nobel Prize earlier today #NobelPrize2018 #NobelPeacePrize2018

Charter cities are an attempt to populate unoccupied land with a new city governed by a new set of rules, where one voluntarily signs up to adhere to those rules.

While Romer's idea applies to cities, the same thing can be extended to apply to new religions, new nations...

The key conceit here is -

Human reason can break from the past. And create things anew. This goes contrary to the Burkean idea of society being a contrast between the dead, the living and the unborn.

It is also the supreme assertion of faith in human nature

It remains to be seen how these ideas progress.

Mr Nehru attempted to create a "new city" with new rules - Chandigarh.

Today it remains a dead pensioner's paradise lacking the vitality of say an old dirty town like Varanasi

In the 1500s, Akbar founded a new city - Fatehpur Sikri. It was all but abandoned

In the 1000s, Rajendra Chola attempted to move away from Tanjore and create a new capital - Gangaikonda Cholapuram

It is a dead town today

Instances where human vision and conceit fell short

The Free market represents one decentralized, unregulated, mechanism to rein in human conceit.

But the market can also go awry if it is swayed by mass irrationality.

In the ultimate analysis, human nature remains vulnerable and hard to trust, with an honorable exception that can be made for Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and the free market.

Which is why the idea of God as well as the hold of tradition remain extremely powerful

Post-script: Thanks for reading.

Correction: It should read "Burkean reading of a society being a contract" not "contrast"

Twitter should allow for edits