Shades of gods |
Every
normal human being desires to understand and have a control over his
environment or surroundings. Science and
technology are the tools that help us achieve that understanding and control. Religion was the earliest science and ritual
was its technology.
I’m
continuing with my reading and interpretation of Grayling’s book introduced in
my last post. Grayling argues that the
earliest science and technology were “stories, myths and supernaturalistic
beliefs.” The stories, myths and beliefs gave purpose and meaning to life’s
experiences. For example, the Ramayana
gave us the meaning and purpose behind the battle between good and evil. Krishna of the Gita taught us to kill
irrespective of our personal relationships so long as our duty mandates the
killing. Let’s forget for now that the
same religion which evolved out of these scriptures later taught us the
superiority of vegetarianism over killings of human beings.
We
are discussing the origins of religion.
Grayling argues that understanding the reality around us, explaining it
to others and controlling it are the original purposes of religion. We would call such things science and technology
today. Science is about understanding
the phenomena around us. Technology is
about controlling the phenomena. What
religion did was just that in the early days of mankind. It tried to make sense of the phenomena
around.
And
it used technologies such as prayers, rituals and taboos.
But
people’s understanding improves with greater knowledge about their environment
and the phenomena in it. Then the gods
receded from friendly neighbourhoods to hostile distances like Mont Olympus or
the Himalayas. The water nymphs, wind
gods and fertility goddesses receded from the Vedas to the more abstract gods
of the Upanishads in India. Similar
distances were adopted by gods in other civilisations too.
Who
created such distances, however? Gods
themselves could not have done it since they were only products of human
imagination or desires. The ordinary
people wouldn’t have created that distance since they would have been happy to
have familiar gods at ever-ready service.
The
priests wanted the distancing between gods and the people. Religion became a powerful tool for social
control, in other words. Priests became
the rulers of people.
Isn’t
religion a powerful instrument of social control even today? Maybe, the priests have put on new
garbs. Of politicians, for example? Or even businessmen? Is the politician wearing the garb of the priest
and the businessman that of the politician and ...?
I’m
still learning about that from Grayling.
More will follow.
[I
have taken much liberty in interpreting what Grayling has written in his book, The
God Argument: The Case against
Religion and for Humanism,
while writing this blog post. This is
not a review. These are my reflections
as I go ahead reading the book.]
0 Comments