My Journey To Atheism - Part One

A topic that has been a recurring interest for me, particularly in an active manner in recent months, is atheism. I have been an atheist for a very long while now, but it wasn't until pretty recently that I started thinking more actively about it.

I used to be religious as a kid. Or rather, I thought I was. Sure, we read in Social Studies about all the major religions of the world, and I studied in a secular school run by a private trust, so there was no religious propaganda of any kind. Indeed, one of the best-liked features of school was that every religious holiday was indeed a holiday; there wouldn't be any religious ceremonies in school, so we all enjoyed the benefit of one more day in the week on which we could sleep late! I knew I was born to a Hindu family, and so was heir to all the religious traditions and beliefs that Hindu families inherit through the generations, and for a long time I thought I was religious enough in my own way.

How wrong I was.

I never learnt any prayers, neither did I ever worship regularly, nor did I like visiting temples. This stemmed initially from the fact that I was too lazy to do stuff like that. Later on, it became laziness plus the fact that it all seemed rather pointless. For instance, it felt somewhat weird to be chanting strange words whose meaning I did not know; my mom, with huge efforts, taught me one or two prayers, but when I asked for the meaning of the words, she didn't quite take me seriously (though she is well-versed with what the prayers mean), and I lost interest quickly. Neither did the idea of bowing down before someone else sit well with me; that was probably partially due to a sense of ego, but at any rate, it did not make sense to me.

My mom prayed and worshipped everyday, and still does, but she never insisted that I should do so as well; this is the first point of difference between me and most others my age whom I've interacted with. My dad was already an atheist, so there was no insistence on religious customs coming from him, and he too never insisted on my either worshipping or not worshipping, leaving the choice to me. He was secular minded too, which may sound weird when said in connection with an atheist, but I can't really infer anything else on seeing the various religious books and texts that he collected over the years (we had the Bible and Quran, apart from the standard Ramayana and Gita, but then we also had various philosophical works, such as essays by Bertrand Russell and the like).

And what of me? I thought I was quite a religious person, because I used to watch just about every mythological serial that came on TV, and for quite some time, I did believe that every detail portrayed was literally true. But science education intervened, and subconsciously I came to the conclusion that these are just stories and cannot be true in the literal sense. The big bang theory, evolution of life, models of the atom and descriptions of subatomic particles had a more convincing ring to them, and I discarded the idea of gods and goddesses and mythical kings and queens for these more tangible mysteries, presented by science. I still continued watching the TV serials, because the stories were interesting enough (and there was nothing else that I could watch on TV).

The real change came about due to Social Studies, in Class 8. That was when we studied modern history, and in particular detail about all the social reformers of the 18th and 19th centuries: the beliefs they held, the societies they founded and the ideas they propagated. Most of them, while not seemingly atheist, at least believed that religious and spiritual belief are personal matters, and the worship of idols or images, or the practice of mindless ritual does no good to anyone. Reading about these people led me to actively think about what I believe, as far as my spiritual beliefs are concerned, and I realized I was already pretty non-religious, by all standards, only I hadn't known it before then.

Class 9 and the next three years were a sort of accelerated maturity period for me. I grappled with the ideas of atheism and agnosticism, flipped and flaunted the names around without really knowing or trying to know what they imply. I also found a new interest in reading non-fiction, and I read quite a few religious books, as part of that interest, though not with any spiritual inclinations in mind. I also happened to read quite a few excellent general science books. And once I was done dabbling with all the different aspects of the matter, I realized that I was still an atheist, not believing in gods or indeed in anything of a supernatural nature, and if anything, my convictions were only strengthened, as a result of my reading.

The next four years, after I was done with school, were when I started reading actively about atheism and atheist activity in the world. It's not been much so far, except for finding out which of my friends are atheist, and reading about atheism in the western world and what it implies to be an atheist in the west. Thus far I was shielded, in part because I wasn't proclaiming my atheist beliefs out in the open world. Atheists in the west have to contend with deeply religious people, who frown upon atheism as a source of degeneracy. Hindus also frown upon atheistic nature, but at present we have enough problems in the form of interreligious disharmony to deal with, alongside terrorism and the like, so nobody's going to worry about who's atheist, in all the mess.

Most of my reading thus far comes from people who have lived and grown in a predominantly Christian community, so their views and their reactions are quite different from what I have developed so far living in a predominantly Hindu community (of course, there's also the fact that I haven't yet gained enough experience in the world to talk very conclusively about what I've observed). These people have lived and faced an entire world of differences, arising solely from their lack of belief in any kind of divinity (which is quite an issue with most religious people in the west, who feel their identity is under attack if their religion is attacked). There have been a lot of words written and spoken on the matter, and a lot of ideas and opinions aired. So there is this entirely new point of view to think about, and at present I am devoting quite some energy to it.

My journey is still continuing. It's like watching a flower bloom - with every layer of petals opening up, a new and more intricate structure is laid bare to look at and analyze. But I still know, at the end of it, how I've travelled and where I've ended up: for all practical purposes, I'm an atheist.

Art Experience

We engineers lose out a lot when we're stuck in our rooms doing nothing but solving equations. Sure, there's internet and there's music, but there's art too, but not many people are into that.

Art isn't just a pretty painting. It ties together history, observation, ideas, themes, and beauty. Sure, you can find any number of books to teach you how to appreciate and identify artworks, but there's nothing like the experience of being face to face with a beautiful artwork and having an interactive session with someone who's involved deeply with art and with teaching people about it.

This is probably why I was never quite as impressed or excited about museums and their collections back home. Sure, there were loads of things, and loads of beautiful things, but unless you have that human touch, of someone who knows and understands the significance of those things, and can convey that opinion (if you don't want to call it anything else), you can't really begin to form an opinion of any depth of your own. I now have had the opportunity to go through a museum gallery guided by someone, whose particular interest it is to cultivate interest and curiosity, and most of all, wonder, in others, in appreciating the richness of the legacy passed down to us, and it was a wonderful opportunity and experience.

Art isn't just paintings. It's also about sculptures, scrolls, costumes, furniture, and just about anything that conveys the aesthetic bent of the mind, or rather of the collective mindset that represents a particular era. This mindset is very fickle; it will change even from decade to decade, but that change isn't an unwelcome thing, because it makes for progress, for innovation, for a new kind of creativity to take birth and shape itself.

I had read about Renaissance art, and something about the artists whose works defined that period, and in fact, sub-periods within that period. But this occasion, I was face to face with a painting from that period. I was asked to describe what I saw in that painting. It was from the early Renaissance. What did we notice? There was a prominent solid gold background, solid gold halos about the figures, very rich and vibrant colours, though darkened with time due to the use of tempera colours, an extravagantly larger size for the more important figures in the painting, a triangular shape for composing the figures, a lack of three dimensional perspective (depth). The figures themselves were of the Virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and saintly figures of their time. Each figure was distinctly identifiable by certain accessories that were peculiarly assigned to them; for example, the Virgin Mary is always clothed in a red robe, symbolizing the sacrifice by her baby Jesus, and a blue cloak, symbolizing her exalted status (certain exotic shades of blue were a very expensive pigment to make, especially if you made it from lapis lazuli or the like). These are tiny things, but they make all the difference.

The next painting was also of the early Renaissance, but at an advanced stage, perhaps thirty years later. What was similar or different between it and the older painting? The same figures of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, with saints, but with more figures this time, including angels and women. The same gold halos and solid gold background, but this time with a sense of perspective, with arches and platforms added to give a sense of depth to the painting. The same use of tempera colours, but with a little more delicacy.

The next painting was a complete contrast. It belonged to the high Renaissance period. Again, the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus. But, there was now a background, of a village, a hill, a river, an entire countryside. A deliberate arrangement of ledges and steps, to give both a sense of depth, as well as a sense of immediacy, as though you could reach out and touch the figures. The materials were oil on canvas, which led to the portrayal of much finer detail than is possible with tempera on wood. The halos which so blatantly declared divinity were now simply reduced to faint gold circles, to convey a subtle message rather than a blunt one. The colours were still rich, but now more subtle, with folds and curves very delicately worked out. The figures were of proportionate size, but the triangular composition style was still preserved. The entire mood of the painting was one of peacefulness and serenity, which are rather human qualities. Compare this to the earlier paintings, which you could say were intended to inspire respect and awe for the divine figures that they were portraying. The focus in this painting was on realism, trying to show things realistically, exactly as they are.

The next painting was again different! It was of the period of Mannerism, where the focus was on showing the manner of things. This one again featured the Virgin Mary, with baby Jesus, but equally prominent was her cousin St Elizabeth. Also shown were John the Baptist and two angels. The mood was one of violence, fear, concern, anxiety. John the Baptist was dying, and painted in the classical pose. The two angels were in shock. Jesus was afraid, Mary was unhappy, and Elizabeth looking very grim. The figures were all disproportionate (Jesus, who would've been only eight months old or so was almost the same size as Mary) and muscularly built. There were no fine details, only broad swathes of colours and tiny lines that combined to produces the general effect of figures. There was no background, no intention to convey depth, no halos, no calmness or serenity, no delicacy or subtlety. A cursory knowledge of the events of the New Testament tells us that this is the point when Elizabeth warns Mary that her son would be killed, with this idea being conveyed to the viewer in the form of John's dying posture, John being a sort of precursor to Jesus and their lives running on somewhat parallel lines.

This, I then understood, was appreciating art. Not merely admiring it for its aesthetic beauty, but also understanding its significance in relation to the life of the people when it was created, and the purpose for which it was created. That tends to lend it a fuller quality, and your appreciation then gains some substance, much like the way you would admire someone better when you can see their intelligence aside from their good looks.

The next leg of the tour explored American Art, and its evolution from the time when the country was born until the second world war. The art from the various time periods in American history reflect the ongoing themes and turbulence of the times, as all art does. A young country that has just started to take shape is fresh with the ideas of exploration, patriotism, innovation, individualism, aspiration to perfection, and utilitarianism, and this is precisely reflected in the artworks of that time.

We started with portraits of famous and prominent figures, which were just that: portraits; paintings by skilled artists to immortalize the subjects of the paintings. The centerpiece of the gallery was the bust of George Washington, portraying him in a stern and serious mood, as an orator, a statesman, a man with a huge responsibility on his shoulders. Equally striking were the paintings of famous landscapes, showing exploration of the new territories that would form part of the young country, as well as paintings of scenes of patriotism arising from both the War of Revolution as well as the Civil War, the most striking of which was the painting of Lady Schuyler burning her fields.

This latter painting shows a young woman, Lady Schuyler, picking up a torch and preparing to set fire to the wheat fields behind her, as her husband helps and her daughter watches, along with another young woman and (presumably) a young slave boy helping. Lady Schuyler is the most prominent figure, dressed in white, blue and red (the colours of the flag, and hence of patriotism), deliberately placed in the centre and given a very discernible triangular composition, in spite of the figures all around her. The scene is easy to understand given the context; the family has learned that British troops are approaching, and rather than be conquered, they would set their fields on fire before they fled to warn others, so that no resources would be left behind. One doesn't know how true the story is, but the painting serves to portray and inspire patriotism, in a very symbolic way, and must have conveyed the same ideals throughout time, wherever it was displayed.

Also striking was a certain quilt made by a pair of young ladies for their home, beautifully crafted and carefully preserved. It may seem odd for something as simple as a quilt to be displayed in a museum, but remember that art is anything that's beautifully crafted by human hands. Quilts were in fact rather important items in early American history, indeed there were customs such as quilt-making parties that served to foster community bonding. The women of the household typically made all the household linen themselves, or at least for ceremonial occasions, and both men and women got together for quilt-making parties and each one would make one part of the quilt, the whole being put together when everyone was done. This particular quilt was probably made for a ceremonial occasion, given that it has come to us so well preserved.

It was formed in the main of two kinds of motifs, one being a simple yet elegant flower motif, probably signifying growth and flourishing of the community and the nation, the other being a rework of the bald eagle emblem, complete with drum and other attributes. The pattern was laid out in nine squares, four bearing the emblem motif and five the flower motif, symmetrical in layout, though each individual motif was not quite symmetrical, with the whole being bordered by a simpler flower and leaf pattern. The colour theme was white, with pink, red and green used for the flower motifs. These colours were also symbolic of prosperity and continuing stability. Most interestingly, the word LIBEBTY was worked into the eagle motif, though whether the spelling was deliberate or accidental we may not know. One might suspect it was deliberate, because of the custom amongst craftsmen out of humility to never allow anything crafted to be absolutely perfect, because only the Creator is held to be perfect, and challenging his perfection is to invite trouble.

And this museum is a publicly funded museum, which means around half its operating budget comes from public taxes. The rest has to be raised through private donations, as do the collections themselves, because a museum operating on public funds does not have the kind of money that private museums or vanity museums do, for purchasing works of art. A publicly funded museum cannot spend 15 billion dollars for one painting, the way a private museum could. The collection is thus painstakingly built up, over decades, by convincing people to donate money and fund the museum's activities, including helping it acquire pieces for the collections, as well as donate their own collections as a civic responsibility. The dynamics of how this works also add to the awe you feel as you walk into such a place.

Museums are all about preserving history. Preserving, as best as we can, every representative material piece of the past, and recording our history through each of these pieces. An art museum simply preserves history through the arts, adding a touch of the aesthetic to our sense of history.

(My experience courtesy the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the University of Southern California)

Random Conversation: Sexy Alu Mattar

"Oh man, I had a full meal."

"What was for dinner?"

"Alu mattar. My roomie made it. It was sexy."

"The alu mattar? Sexy?"

"Yes, of course!"

"Do you realize you're changing the definition of sexy?"

"Why, what's wrong with calling it sexy?"

"Oh really? So... what were the curves like?"

"Of the mattar? Absolutely round and fresh, man, and the alu? Such lovely angular shape... And the tomatoes, so perfectly soft and mashed up... and the garlic and ginger paste and the ajwine added such lovely flavour...!"

"You know, that kind of description could be used for..."

"Yeah, I know."

Pay It Forward

They say, that humankind has a natural, inexplicable, karmic gift: what goes around, comes around. Actually, that is only half the circle. If you want the full circle to exist, there is an accompanying responsibility: what comes around, must go around. In simple words, that means everyone must be at the giving end when they can give it, if they wish to be at the receiving end when they need it.

Human society is huge. We number somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven billion people, every single one different from the other. We live in organized cooperative society (or at least, most of us do), where each one must contribute, so that the collective good is served. So why is altruism necessary? Why would one want to selflessly help someone else, without any expectation of reward?

It makes immediate sense when one says that each person must contribute; each one must work and earn a living, and the combined contributions of each person help sustain the community as a whole. Earlier, we had the barter system so the reward for contribution was direct; now we have money, so it's a little more complicated, but it's still essentially the same in principle. But it wouldn't make immediate sense to someone extremely practical, that going a little bit out of your way to help out others without any expectation of reward is just as important. You don't get a clear answer to the question: "What am I going to get out of it?"

Anyone who's interested in why our ancestors developed a sense of altruism and why we still have it today may refer to the relevant chapter in The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. The book is about atheism, but Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and he offers an explanation from that point of view. Altruism is essentially an investment, due to the extreme unpredictability of life. I cannot be sure of getting food everyday, but if I live in a group where everyone tries to get food, and shares equally whatever is obtained, surely my chances of starving at the end of the day are significantly lesser, than if I were to live alone. I share my excess today, in the hope that tomorrow someone will share their excess with me, if mine depletes. Individuals who possess this sense are more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce, and more likely to pass on this trait to their offspring, which is why we have it today, so many generations after it developed in primitive humans.

There can still be an objection raised at this point. Alright, so someone does you a favour. Why should you not return the favour to that person, the one who did it to you? That person deserves it more than anyone else, why must one be altruistic in general? And isn't such an investment a dangerous one to make at all? What if you do something for someone who will never be capable of returning the favour back to you?

There is nothing to prevent us from being good to people who do us a good turn. In fact, it's a very nice thing to do. It makes perfect logical sense. And as for someone who can't return the favour back to you, how do you know that there isn't a third person, who can do you good, but who is in need of something which the second person can give? How do you know that there isn't a chain of such people? The whole concept of altruism is based on this, that it works in a circle, and that such a circle is possible, never mind its actual realization in life.

The movie Pay It Forward was based on this idea. You may not always be able to return a favour that someone does you. Someone else may not be able to return you a favour that you do them. So why not just go on helping people anyway? Someday you will receive help too, because you are part of the circle. And the more people you help, and the more you encourage this concept, the bigger the circle can be.

The next observation is, how do we know that there is such a circle at all? There are hundreds of people in the world who do not receive the help they need, at the most critical points in their lifetime. Isn't the circle supposed to include everyone, if it exists? It's true that there are people who don't receive help. There are people who are harmed for no fault of theirs, often even deliberately harmed by someone else for that someone's personal benefit. But that makes it all the more urgent for people to understand and adopt the concept of altruism. It's true that you need to be able to support yourself at a minimum level, before you can support others. But doesn't it fit in, that others can help you reach that minimum level, from where you can take off and then begin the paying forward process yourself?

Most of all, it often doesn't take too much effort to go out of your way to help someone else. Helping out can be for things as simple as helping your neighbour with heavy bags, or giving someone a lift. That kind of thing is not just manners; in a way, it's altruism. If everyone gives it, everyone receives it too. And if you receive it, you should think about giving it too.

Deadlines Matter To Us!

A firm of surveyors, in the mood for some whacky fun, took an extremely fat book and went out to study the reaction of people in various professions. 

The doctor looked through the book, pausing to note intriguing passages, and declared his opinion that it would take him six months to complete a study of the book. 

The lawyer skimmed through it, flipping quickly through the pages, and said it would take him a couple of months to plough through it. 

The manager glanced at the book and its title, and averred it would take him a week or so to get through it. 

The engineer didn't even look at the book. "When's the exam?"

Many thanks to the two lovely ladies who told me this story.

Being Feminine

For some time, I have found my thoughts often turning to the concept of femininity. Femininity, not feminism. I am already a rather headstrong feminist, in that I believe in equal rights and opportunities, as well as equal standards and regard between the sexes. The trouble is the latter part seems to somewhat collide with popular perceptions of femininity.

What does it mean to be feminine? I have good reason to ask, and good authority to answer, since I was labelled a "non-female" by a good number of people (men, actually) for quite some time, for different reasons. What was different about me, that people thought I wasn't feminine? 

I was a tomboy for quite some time. A very long time, in fact. I always wore jeans and t-shirts, and they were the baggy, loose kind, that guys usually wear. I never wore makeup or jewelry; never bothered with my hair except for keeping it clean and tightly tied up, away from my face; never worried about getting rid of acne; never giggled with a group of girls, talking about boys or movies; never went for any intense grooming sessions; never displayed those typical gestures or mannerisms that most "feminine" girls seem to have. And then there was the matter of attitude too. Apparently I simply didn't "behave" like a girl, whatever that is supposed to mean. And several times, people advised me with earnest and good intentions to change all that!

Things did change gradually. My tastes in clothes changed a little; I still wear only t-shirts and jeans, but these are now somewhat of the "feminine" kind (read better-fitting). I wear a minimal amount of jewelry, and I keep my hair more loosely tied now, so that some of the neatness has been sacrificed. I do some minimal amount of the grooming part, with the emphasis on neatness. I still don't wear makeup or giggle, though I laugh a lot. I don't roam around with a pack of girls talking about boys or movies. I don't know if I have yet developed "girly" behaviour or not. 

But, it seems this was enough to change that tag! I thought being feminine meant having or displaying qualities that are unique to one as a female; that means you get those qualities only if you are a female. Nothing has changed in my essential mind or body in the past ten years, and yet, a simple change of clothes and elimination of acne seems to have changed the tag. Is that all femininity is about? The clothes and the hair and the makeup? If so, it isn't exactly a very useful or practical thing, is it? And if it has no use, why in the universe would I go to the trouble of developing that feminine quality in the first place! How presumptuous indeed to imply, that an essential part of my worth comes from such superficial things!

The other aspect is that being feminine apparently requires certain social attitudes as well. But in a way, this seems to be trampling on the ground of feminism, insofar as that is used to view certain social mores and norms. For example, I can cross a busy street in India without getting killed, and I'm quite skilled at that. Crossing the road alone is not a problem for me, and neither is it for hundreds of girls in India. Yet, if I happen to cross the road, or even walk by the side of the road with a guy, he will invariably move between me and the oncoming traffic. This is regardless of how much the guy knows or doesn't know me. Of course, he has been taught by his seniors and his peers that this is how you must treat a female, so it doesn't matter if he's a friend or a stranger; he will still walk on the side where the traffic is. 

Now I can complain about this, protesting that it is really unnecessary and I am quite capable of crossing the road facing the traffic myself, thank you very much: this is the feminist in me speaking. Or I can quietly accept it, because part of the "feminine" social deal is that it's okay to let a guy care for you any way he can; that in fact, it's supposed to be that way, that it's a guy's duty to take care of any female he's with. What makes it funny, apart from complicating matters, is that when a female refuses a male's "protection" or "care" in this manner, she actually affronts his "masculinity" (read male ego)! Whenever I protest against any guy trying to keep me away from the traffic, even on the safest and most orderly of roads, they physically pull me to the other side, saying things like, "You won't understand! Just come to the other side!" Those who don't or won't go so far as that, give me a look that combines surprise with a shade of being offended.

There are plenty of things like this, that a guy would do trying to be chivalrous: picking up bags, extending a hand over difficult terrain, opening doors, holding out chairs and so on. I find it rather strange; I don't need anyone, guy or girl, to do things like that for me. Yet tons of girls accept such behaviour, and indeed expect it from guys. So, is this attitude also part of being "feminine"? I've never seen a girl pull out a chair for a guy. Ever.

Surely, being feminine must be more than dressing yourself up or acting like a wimp? I still wonder.

New World

A new world is mine to make my own. And yet, life is no different in this world than it was in the old one.

How does it matter which side of the road you walk on? You still have to walk. 

How does it matter what time of day or night you walk? It's still unsafe to walk alone. 

How does it matter who you meet and talk to and roam about with? You still need friends, and you will find them wherever you go. 

How does it matter, who cooks best and who cooks worst, or indeed, who cooks at all? You still have to eat food to live. And to eat that food, you have to cook it the best you can. 

How does it matter how many people in the city you talk to? Girls will be girls, and boy will be boys. And girls and boys will always have the same issues around them and between them, that they always did. 

How does it matter how you try to disguise yourself? Your heart is always the same, still beating strong within you, with the rhythm that you have learnt and developed over so many years. 

How does it matter which song you listen to? Music is universal, it speaks to the mind in a language that does not have words or alphabets. 

How does it matter how many stories you hear? There will always be stories, and each brings out a new and fresh aspect of human nature you never knew existed before. And you will have your stories to tell and reveal too. 

How does it matter how far away a friend or a parent or a lover may be? You send them your love every time you think of them.

And how does it matter how far your goal is? In your dreams, you still see that which is most precious to you, that which is most priceless, that which you desire to have and cherish so passionately that when you awaken, nothing will stop you on your journey as you step towards it. 

At the end of the day, when your mind is exhausted and your heart begins to have misgivings, your sleep will rejuvenate you, invigorate you, and cheer you and offer you solace, so that you may continue with the next leg of your journey on the morrow. 

This new world is then, already my own.