So, are you an Atheist?

Once in a while, I am asked if I am an atheist, or if I "subscribe" to any religion. The answer I usually give is that I think of myself a "freethinker" that does not subscribe to sweeping labels like Hinduism or Christianity or Atheism or Agnosticism or whatever else (although "freethought" itself is sort of a label). In my view, such labels often represent an oversimplification of the matter at hand, simply because the reality is multidimensional and complex. When Gandhi was asked if he was a Hindu, he famously replied, "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew." While it is a politically correct answer, there is far more to it than that. It made me ponder what exactly constitutes subscribing to such labels.

It is clear to me now that there are at least 5 key aspects associated with such labels. Depending on the extent to which one aligns one's self with each of them, one align one's self with that particular label. The label could be a religion, an ideological system, a life-position, etc. These aspects are not completely disjoint though.

1. (Blind) Faith / Theology

This is probably the best known aspect of most religions - a theology, a (blind) faith in the notion of a supernatural being, a "God" or Gods. Often, it comes as a package deal with some rather fantastical claims and stories that are often unverifiable and unrepeatable. The best known examples are in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahai), some Hindu religions (Vaishnavism/Shaivism/Shaktism/Smartism) and some animistic/pagan/nature religions. To many people, they serve as allegories for a larger morality. But to many others, they are literal truths to be blindly accepted, even if they contradict scientific evidence, or even common sense logic. This is certainly not an aspect that I can subscribe to.

2. Philosophy / Spirituality

This aspect transcends traditional religions, and applies to labels like secularism, humanism, Marxism, etc. Simple things like 'live and let live', 'treat others as you would have them treat you', 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind', etc. constitute philosophy in my view. Most religions have rich philosophical systems, often shaped by their theology. The Hindu religions have several distinct philosophical systems that are based on ideas ranging from monotheism and monism to polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, hedonism, agnosticism and atheism. Some religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, and perhaps Taoism seem almost exclusively like just philosophies. Secularism and humanism are also powerful philosophies. Most people live out a complex mixture of such philosophies, shaped by their life experiences, and I am no different. In that sense, I too am a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Confucian, a Gandhian, a secularist, an atheist, a humanist, etc.

3. Culture / Identity

Life would generally be boring without culture. No wonder then that most religious systems have been customized to the cultures of specific ethno-linguistic groups to reinforce a sense of identity. For example, Judaism and Shintoism are often called "ethnic religions", while some Hinduisms are often considered "lifestyles", rather than religions. Over the course of civilizations, this notion has become quite ingrained in most societies. Festivals and attire are mostly reflections of culture. This includes not just religious festivals but also secular festivals like Earth Day, Friendship Day, etc. In my view, they represent celebrations of life itself. And it is not necessary to subscribe to only one culture. I think assimilating good aspects of various cultures makes life richer. So, I have my own reasons to celebrate Diwali (symbolizing the primacy of knowledge over ignorance), Holi (symbolizing nature's amazing diversity), Pongal (celebrating agriculture's foundational role in civilization) , Christmas (celebrating the spirit of giving), Thanksgiving (reaffirming one's gratitude to family), and so on. And of course, who does not want to enjoy the holidays!

4. Politics

This is probably the aspect about religions that most people, including me, detest. Not so long ago, I wrote a post arguing why religions are essentially tools of politics and why they should be contained (Deus Caritas Est). Religions have always been, and still are, routinely used as tools of political division, subjugation and hatred. Early Islam's spread in West Asia and North Africa was essentially through imperialistic wars. Christianity's spread in Latin America occurred mainly in conjunction with colonial conquests. The Crusades were essentially a geopolitical tussle for hegemony. Religions remain potent political tools even today, whether it is in the geopolitics of nations, or communal pogroms faced by common people. There is a delicate distinction I draw between philosophy and politics. Imposing rules on one's own self is philosophy. Seeking to control others is politics. Choosing vegetarianism, or abstinence for one's self is a philosophy. Curtailing women's rights, or hanging apostates is politics. We already have (though still evolving) codified systems of politics, based on human rights and democracy, designed with reason and common sense to promote equality and harmony around the world. We do not need religions to dictate subversive alternative politics of hatred.

5. Business

Of course, no religion would be complete if it does not provide a means to make money for the people involved. Many religions have become lucrative businesses (although they probably always were). Whether it is the tithe given to the church, or devotees donating tons of gold to temples, religions are indeed big businesses. Not to mention that they are tax-free! No wonder then that smart businessmen in the recent past have started their own religions like Mormonism and Scientology. In India, "swamis" preaching neo-Hinduisms have proliferated. Of course, there are those who use this money for genuinely progressive purposes like building schools and hospitals. But then again, there is no reason such endeavors cannot be done based simply on the philosophy of the common good, for example, UNICEF. Religions essentially profit from these activities by being the "middle-men". I suppose one can engage in whatever legitimate profession one likes.

Perhaps we should all try starting our own religions just for the fun of it. In all actuality, it does not seem to take too much effort. Recycle a bunch of philosophical principles, mix it with some unverifiable fairy tales, possibly including the claim that a cooked up God creature passed them to you, grind it with some cultural practices, season it with many arbitrary restrictions, and garnish it with a few warning about the dangers of not believing in it - voila, you have a new religion! The tough part is probably gathering a coterie of dedicated "disciples" to take care of the logistics of propagating your religion to newer customers using carrots and/or sticks. Give it a few centuries, and who knows, maybe it will become the dominant player in the marketplace of religions!

In real life, more often than not, I do not have the time for such an exposition to people who ask me that question. If the freethinker response is not satisfactory, I just reply, "Yes, I am. No, I am not. Maybe. Any or all of these positions simultaneously!"