Book Review: 'The Necessity of Atheism' by Shelly

What are we? Whence do we come? and whither do we go? Is birth the commencement, and is death the conclusion of our being? What is birth and death? These are some of the questions, PB Shelley examines in this book. Though most often, the answer to all the above questions veers around God, the author disagrees, saying, 'God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof'. The book then goes on to revisit the popular arguments in support of intelligent creation, control and other managerial responsibilities of the universe.

The book ends with a unique assertion.

'This desire to be forever as we are; the reluctance to a violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe' is, indeed, 'the secret persuasion which has given birth to the opinions of a future state', and of God, who can make it happen. Or, Newton's first law of motion explains why there is theism.

Go Back to Nomadic Lifestyle?

A New Lifestyle 

I have written many articles, each of which featuring a new or varied look at some part of human nature. I think most of it veers around one idea. How incorrect or misplaced we are, when we continue to react, appreciate, or sense, as we currently do. A few of the questions that were examined illustrate this, like, how harmful is unity, why the current pattern of education is fit for a change, etc. And it is not difficult to come to this conclusion, whatever is common to all these issues is the one that deserves to be attacked first. 

If we are to proceed with the re-examination of all that we currently consider as wrong, unsuitable, or inappropriate, the very first entity that pops up is our current lifestyle. I think there should be no doubts about this, since it is a prime common factor, which in fact engulfs everything else.

Our current lifestyle is one of permanent settlement, and the earlier one can be considered to be a fully nomadic one.  When we compare both, one thing stands out.

In a settled life style, everything good or bad in a society gets distributed in a rather narrow centralized way, limited both in time and space. Whereas in a nomadic one, all this happens in a broad, decentralized manner, spreading fast in all dimensions. 

As a result, in the former case, people get fed up of good things fast, since they are virtually confined to the same spot, where they are repeatedly exposed to the same ambience. And when we look at the bad things, the torment continues with no respite. In spite of all this, people continue to revel in their fortunes, since they hardly get a chance to learn of any other way of life. 

But in the latter case, exact opposite happens. Here, the good gets distributed, making more people happy. When the bad follows suit, inconveniences smooth out due to spreading. Also, at any time, they shall remain better informed about whatever possibilities that may occur about enhancing their means, outlook, and happiness, always being in touch with a wider cross section of the world.

Undoubtedly, the nomadic approach is the better one. 

But we chose to be otherwise. And are continuing to remain to be so. Perhaps farming did the trick, the agrarian community of that era couldn’t have afforded to be always on the move. We hence follow a lifestyle of settlements and communities, even though the good dies here fast and the bad lasts longer. But, since the original compulsions of the agrarian society are no more applicable to us, we can very well do a rethink.

Now, if we are to utilize the benefits of the progress, we made so far in the areas of science and technology, we can make a suitable mix of these two lifestyles. This can let us enjoy the benefits of both, while avoiding the many disadvantages, each have.

How to Assume a Lifestyle

Human lifestyle is constantly evolving, and, all the disquiet that is seen in our societies is a direct result of this. What is necessary is to have a theory in this regard, which can guide the populace to arriving at their priorities in life. 

From my book Hubs that Provoke....

Theory of evolution describes the formation of sea and land animals. If we look from the perspective of an altruistic animal, different results emerge.

Evolution is a great theory, I agree. It is the greatest theory in all of the science since it tries to answer one of the most difficult of all questions – Why are we, what we are?  

This theory gives a good explanation for much of the pertinent questions concerning life. Essentially, by providing a logical answer to one question, how, the first simplest form of life gave rise to all of the huge diversity we see today. How life appears in various forms from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales.  

I have a few questions. What makes our scientists so certain about this? Where is the evidence? Is it like this: Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of an organism? Those small, rather imperceptible changes happen continuously?  

Can we say, as the first step, few worms became fish? Then some of the fish came onto land and developed four legs, and those four-legged animals grew hair. Sometime after, few of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves "humans" and discovered evolution.  

Now you see, evolution is not a phenomenon of the past. It is an active process occurring even now. The emergence of new strains of influenza, drug-resistant cancer cells, and pesticide-resistant insects demonstrate that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time.  

Within the population of influenza viruses, for example, some viruses show resistance to the drugs used to treat them. Over a period of time, the resistant viruses survive and reproduce and new influenza vaccines must be created to treat the newly evolved strain. Another example, of evolution in action, can be seen in laboratory experiments. Using rapidly reproducing species such as bacteria, yeast, and fruit flies, scientists have shown that altering the environmental conditions in which these organisms exist can induce genetic changes within the population.  

But, what about humans? What signs can we see here? I think we are looking at humans as another form of life. No, humans differ from all other forms of life. They keep finding problems for themselves, in the shape of solutions to existing problems. This act, what could be loosely termed thinking, effectively turns human into an altruistic animal.  

And we constantly see our ideas and thoughts undergoing transformation continuously. In the visible sphere, this can be most easily felt as fashion. More inclusive aspects of such a change are what keeps our society constantly engaged at any given time. Presently, the attraction we show to everything 'natural', or our predilection with the idea of democracy can be seen as examples having the capability to involve all of the humanity. All of which essentially is nothing but wayside stops for evolution?

I have another doubt here. Not all humans subscribe to every new thought, however popular that may become. If we are to think of two categories of humans, one, who welcome and move with the change, and the other, who oppose such changes tooth and nail, what future shall befall on each? Won’t the progenies, of those who presently oppose all the natural changes to enjoy the prevailing climate of comfort, find themselves grossly out of place with the future? And the successors, of those who accommodate themselves in the agonies of the present, find themselves better equipped for the future?

I have one more doubt. Even when people subscribe to new thoughts, all such ideas do not get the same reception. Some are readily accepted by our society, some might get only a lukewarm response, and few others face real opposition. How will this affect our future? If the ideas readily accepted by us now, be of great help, and the ideas we oppose now, be of no significance, there shall not be any reason to worry. But, if it isn’t, which is quite a possibility since one can never know the future significance of an idea now, we are in for trouble. Assuming that ideas are the natural products of human minds, shouldn’t we be giving equal importance to all the thoughts?

There is still another doubt. On what basis are we putting man towards the end of evolution? Why can’t the living organisms start with a man? Isn’t it more likely that an organism that can do all its functions of life and living, with fewer amounts of hardware, lesser environmental load, and reduced requirements of input, is a later version? Thinking in this way, doesn’t it look more natural for all other forms of life to follow man?

Yes, there is a need to revisit evolution.

Another go at Peace

Why is that humans have the practice of identifying each one by a unique name that does not carry any form of information or intelligence? In fact it seems long back in history, names always carried some information that is relevant to the society, surviving old names, like Miller, Smith, etc., show.
An important lesson we all learn in our initial days of association, be it with programming, engineering, medicine, science, or arts, is that the variables, constants, or other entities, especially the ones that are subject to manipulations, are to be named in an intuitive way. Which will obviate such entities getting mixed up, while ensuring a seamless flow of reasoning and judgement, an essential feature of success, anywhere.
Now imagine we all are named in such a manner. That is, each name will somehow indicate the salient features of one’s connection with the entity (constant, variable, etc) that is of current interest. Think of the benefits. Every social transaction shall be meeting its desired end, as there is no mismatch. Nobody shall be feeling the need to assert oneself, and neither will one feel the urge to ignore, since all those who take part in various transactions, are the ones made for each other. For example, if I need a loan, I can approach the person whose name shall be indicating, say a big heart, or if I need to dispose off something, I can ask the ones whose name sound needy. Gone are the irritated, disappointed, or the thankless, and ones who are otherwise pissed off.
You see, life is so simple.
Aren’t humans an interesting lot? They know, having a meaningful way of identifying an entity, makes it easy, everything that follows. And they apply this logic everywhere, in things living or abstract.
But they have been carefully avoiding this in naming themselves, which would have altered history. And by doing so, they opened up an easy way for misunderstandings, redundancies, and other negative aspects, to prevail, leading to social disharmony and danger of self annihilation. (This is another proof to my theory that humans have an ulterior interest to keep life complex!)
Then they rightly identified the prevailing danger and its cause, and is constantly instituting corrective measures. Surprisingly, almost all remedial measures are aimed at making humans more accommodating to such divergent views, ideas, and practices. Whereas, a more meaningful name would have eliminated the possibility of such dividing forces, in the first place.
What do we need to do? Why can’t we think of rolling names? One is given a name at birth, which could point to the salient features that are of significance, at that age. The name can undergo changes at every stage that necessitate addition or deletion of features, like completing education, gaining experience, or other eventualities of interest. When we communicate, each of us would naturally assume relevant roles, for example, one of authority, one of receptiveness, or submission, such that there isn’t any loss. And, each and every one will feel encouraged to live up to one’s name, making peace only, to prevail.