WHY I AM NOT A HINDU

By Ramendra Nath

Originally published by Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj) 1993.

 

Electronically reprinted with permission. I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ramendra_nath/hindu.html

And this one appeared intriguing discussing science vis-avis

Hinduism and Christianity:

Why Hinduism Is Science-proof

DIPANKAR GUPTA, Nov 8, 2010

[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-11-08/editpage/

28238436_1_science-and-religion-hinduismchristianity]

God is often a witness in court proceedings the world over. This is especially so when statements are made under oath with a hand on a holy book. But only in India, God can be both witness and litigant. That Ram Lalla filed a case claiming property in Ayodhya would have surprised secular societies elsewhere, but in India it is routine and unremarkable. From this it might be tempting to argue that Christianity is intrinsically rational while Hinduism is not. That is not strictly true. Both depend ultimately on faith and, indeed, this is true of all religions. If Christianity looks different today it is not because it is inherently more reasonable, but that science forced it to become so.

As Hinduism is an idol-centric religion, its core principles are of no consequence to science. Christianity is a creation-centric religion. This is why it had to oppose modern science which, too, is creation-centric. The latter has taken strong positions on how life began, how day became night, and how our beings are energised. This is what compelled science and religion to go on a collision course in the western world. From the 16th century onwards, they were like two monster trucks driving in opposite directions on a one-way street.

 Hinduism was spared all this. It worships divine heroes who step in and out of this world. They marry, procreate, win wars, and also have their share of losing. But at the end of the day they have the last word which is why their lives should be emulated. Hinduism makes no dogmatic declaration on how humans appeared on earth or on whether the sun is stationary or not. In India, our gods have never been challenged by science as they are not concerned about matters of creation.

This is why Hinduism has never felt the need to take on Newton, Galileo, Humphry Davy or Darwin, nor even Aryabhat or the Charvakyas. On the other hand, under science's onslaught, Christianity was in a doctrinal mess. It had invested a lot in Aristotle-proofing the Bible, but that was beginning to fall apart. Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark soon began to appear as fables for the credible. Even our positioning on earth was now more about gravity than God.

Over time there were just too many bullets for Christianity to dodge. The Lutheran-inspired Reformation of the 16th century helped religion to make peace with science, but only after the Bible retreated on some of its principles. From then on Christianity had to accommodate reason in order to survive, but Hinduism never faced such compulsions. As it was idol-centric in character, faith in India could proceed unchecked by science; in fact, the twain need never meet. Creation-centric Christianity could not ignore science. This is probably why, in retrospect, it was possible in Europe for the Renaissance to grow into the Reformation and finally into the Enlightenment. Protestant clerics soon became quite enthusiastic about science and believed with Michael Faraday that the work of God was just like science: neither irrational nor petulant, but orderly and dependable. Pascal from the Catholic side echoed a similar sentiment when he said that the Christian religion is not contrary to reason and, if it were, "our religion would be absurd, laughed at".

 Many of the most remarkable western figures of science in the 17th and 18th centuries were trained by men of religion in their initial years. Humphry Davy was taught science in school by a Reverend J C Coryton; Robert Boyle by his village parson; Francis Bacon by John Whitgift, later to become Archbishop of Canterbury; Newton lucked in getting his lessons at home from his stepfather who was a minister and so did Robert Hooke from his father who was a curate. These scientists could now go to church and laboratory without a schism in their souls.