Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

"Sathyannasti Paro Dharma" (there is no dharma greater than adherence to truth) says a Sanskrit sentence. "Satyameva jayate" (truth alone triumphs) says another. I subscribe to both. But I don’t subscribe to them lip-service. My life is built on them! If "truth" is ultimately what your life has to be built upon, then everything else has to come under the scanner as to whether it conforms to the truth. And that "everything else" includes the religions. That’s when the fun begins!

I hold no brief for any religion. Having become an atheist at the age of twelve, and being one for the next twelve years, religions never attracted me - in fact, they don't do so even now! My primary concern is with truth. Religions come into the picture only because all of them claim to present the truth, and expect you to believe their claims by faith. And as in other cases, just because they claim to present the truth does not mean that what they are presenting is actually the truth. Their history shows that religions are a curious mixture of truths and untruths. The way to test whether something that presents itself as truth is not to accept it blindly by faith, but the exact opposite – to hammer it with all your might, with all your strength, with all your intelligence, with all your skill, with all your ability, and with all the resources at your disposal, ruthlessly and relentlessly, in a sustained and systematic manner. Only when it can withstand such a hammering, should it be accepted as the truth. For example, today we accept the law of gravity as truth. Try to disprove it with all your might and with all you ability, with all your skill and all your intelligence, and you will only end up proving it to be the truth. You may break your head against it, indeed you may end up losing your life in trying to disprove it (try jumping out of a fourth floor window!), but it won't budge!

That, is the nature of truth. Not only can it withstand any amount of intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering, it will actually win! Truth is a merciless destroyer of false beliefs. And religions don't stand a chance in front of truth if the beliefs they espouse go contrary to it. World history is littered with the carcasses of false beliefs which have been ruthlessly mowed down by the juggernaut of truth. "The earth is flat and the sun and the stars revolve around it" - so was a belief strongly held religiously by many people once upon a time. Out it went when it hit against the truth. (It took a hundred years to do so, for religions are quite stubborn mules, but in the war between truth and religion, a hundred years is nothing). Did truth care a bit about "not hurting people's feelings" and letting the untruth continue? No, of course not! And good that it did not. Or else we would have still be stuck with the belief that the earth is flat and the sun and the stars revolve around it! All for the sake of not hurting the religious beliefs of some people. "Satyameva jayate" - Truth alone triumphs. And "triumphing" is not the characteristic of some namby-pamby set of beliefs which have to be protected from any assaults on it. It is the characteristic of truth.

Which brings us to the big question - "What is truth?"

Stripping it of all philosophical mumbo-jumbo, truth is basically what corresponds to reality. If I take a pen in my hand and say "This is a pen" you would agree and say "That's the truth" because it corresponds with reality. But if I say "This is a shirt", you would disagree because that statement contradicts reality. You would not get into any speculation about "What does he understand by the word 'shirt'? Does it correspond with my understanding of the word 'shirt'? etc. etc." Such stuff is best left to the armchair philosophers. You know very well what a pen is and what a shirt is and expect others to do so. You would also not certainly say, "Both the statements are true - It is a pen as well as a shirt!" You know very well that it is not both a pen and a shirt at the same time. It is either a pen or a shirt (or neither of those, but not both). You would also not indulge in any philosophical digression such as "Both a shirt and a pen are ultimately objects made of atoms. Objects are continually disintegrating and being formed from other existing material. So what is being seen by me as a pen today may actually become a shirt tomorrow by a re-arrangement of its atoms. Hence in a way, this person is speaking the truth!" Only armchair philosophers have the time and the inclination and the stupidity to indulge in such mental acrobatics! If you care for me, you may lovingly point out to me that "This is not a shirt, it is a pen." And if I still persist with my belief, you would most probably leave me alone, for time and life to correct me.

It is easy enough for people to apply the definition of truth as "that which corresponds to reality" to mundane, day-to-day matters like the pen and the shirt. But when it comes to the more important questions of life - the answers to which give meanings to our lives - questions such as "Who am I? What am I here for? What is the purpose of my life? Is there a God? If yes, where is he? What is he like? Why did he create us? Why did he create this universe? Why are things the way they are? Why is there so much evil, pain, and suffering in this world? Why is there so much injustice? Why do we have to struggle so much just to even live properly? What happens after death? Is there a life after death?" – when it comes to questions like these, things become far more difficult! Different religions give differing answers, with some similarities and some differences. To avoid the difficulties, people get into simple generalizations like "All religions teach the same things" or "The Geeta, the Bible and the Quran ultimately teach the same things!" when even a cursory acquaintance regarding what they say about subjects like the nature of God and man, what happens after death etc., show that they contradict each other irreconcilably. To all those (generally coming from religions which teach it) who take the naïve stand that "All religions teach the same thing," I ask the simple question, "Have you reached that momentous conclusion after carrying out a thorough study of ‘all religions’ or are you saying that just because you ‘feel’ that it is so?" There is not much place for such ‘feelings’ in the search for truth. We know how unreliable our ‘feelings’ are and how often they have been proved wrong.

"So why bother?" asks another type of person. Answer: Because what we believe to be the truth about these matters profoundly affects the way we live! "Searching for the truth" has been an important activity of man right from time immemorial. Why? Simply because man intuitively knows that when his beliefs are in line with truth, the world around him makes better sense. He is in a better state to understand and appreciate life, and to live his life more confidently. It is similar to the difference between a man walking in the dark and another walking in the light. A man who is walking in the dark cannot see anything. Groping, fumbling, blundering, stumbling, falling down, getting up again, taking the next step hesitatingly, his progress is very slow. Another man who is walking in the light is not only walking confidently, he is also enjoying his walk, enjoying the sights around him, has a lightness in his spirit, plus reaches his destination faster. A person whose beliefs and life are not in consonance with "truth" i.e. reality, is like the person walking in the dark. He goes through life groping, fumbling, blundering, stumbling, falling down, getting up again, taking the next step hesitatingly, wasting a lot of time and energy, and making very slow progress. Indeed, he doesn't even know whether he is making any progress in his life at all, since he doesn't even know where he is going; nor where he is supposed to be going! He may be a very successful person by the standards of this world – he may be rich, he may be famous, he may be powerful, he may have great achievements against his name, but for him, life is like walking in the darkness. Another person whose beliefs and life are in line with "truth" or "reality" not only goes through his life more confidently and successfully, but also enjoys it more. That is also the reason why generally speaking, better educated people go through their lives more confidently, successfully, and happily (that's of course, only a broad generalization, specific exceptions are bound to be there) - because their beliefs are more in consonance with reality. It is the same as playing in a game - a player who knows the objective and the rules of the game well (along with the generally used strategies and tactics) and plays by them will play the game more confidently, successfully, and enjoyably than another who doesn't even know what the objective or the rules are! Not only so, the one who knows will end up winning the game as against the person who does not even know what the objective or the rules of the game are. The same is true of the game of life. The man who knows what the purpose of life is, and what the rules are, will play the game of life more confidently, successfully, and enjoyably than another who doesn't even know what the purpose of life or the rules are! Man intuitively knows that his life will become more confident, successful, and enjoyable if it is more in line with the "truth" or "reality".

(The converse, however, is not true! The blabbering madman on the street who believes that he is the king, is totally confident about himself! He is completely confident that he is right, and no amount of arguing with him will convince him otherwise! He has not allowed hard facts to affect his beliefs. Many seemingly sane people are also experts at not allowing hard facts to affect their beliefs! But more about that later.)

Second, knowing the truth is what sets you free. Besides Jesus’ statement to that effect in John 8:32, it is also our experience in daily life. To use an example, you have started hearing a strange, rumbling noise in your car. You have shown the mechanic and he too has failed to diagnose the problem. You have tried everything and the noise is still not stopping. You have started getting worried – it has started affecting your sleep! Finally, you decide to take the car to the experts of the company. They take a couple of days to diagnose the problem and tell you what the problem is. When you know it, your mind comes to rest; you are set free! It may take you a month and a substantial amount to get the problem repaired, but now that you know the truth, your mind is at rest, your spirit is free, and you can sleep peacefully! Imagine knowing the truth about life! Imagine what it will do to you, how much you would be set free, if you knew the answers to questions like, "Who am I? What am I here for? What is the purpose of my life? Is there a God? If yes, where is he? What is he like? Why did he create us? Why did he create this universe? Why are things the way they are? Why is there so much evil, pain, and suffering in this world? Why is there so much injustice? Why do we have to struggle so much just to even live properly? What happens after death? Is there a life after death? What are the rules of the game of life? How am I to live here while I am on this earth? What are the things which are really important and what things are unimportant and irrelevant? I don’t want to come to the end of my life and realize that I wasted my life on irrelevant things."

"Knowing the Truth" is important to man. Hence the search for truth. This "search for the truth" basically takes two forms - material and spiritual. The material search for the truth covers all the sciences. Physics is the search for the truth regarding laws which govern the physical universe. Biology is the search for the truth regarding the reality of the physical nature of living organisms. As the understanding of physical laws gets better and better i.e. comes closer and closer to reality, man's life becomes better and better materially and physically. He is able to exercise better control over his environment, have better facilities which make his life easier and so on. As biology progresses and man's understanding of biological truths gets better, his life comes more in line with "truth". Better medicines and vaccines are invented, man's life expectancy increases, and man is better able to live a more disease-free and healthier life. Once upon a time, people believed that smallpox was a punishment sent by the goddess Bhadra Kali and were very much afraid of this deity. Fear of this goddess was such that if anybody was infected by smallpox, the sufferer would never murmur a word against her, but would say that Kali Mata had blessed him. Smallpox was pictured as a special blessing, a visit by goddess Kali, though thousands died by that infectious disease. Later on, as man’s knowledge came more in line with truth, medicines cured, vaccines prevented, and Kali could do nothing.

The second form the "search for the truth" takes is spiritual. Man also intuitively knows that he is much more than material, and that in the spiritual realm too, there is truth. And that the more his beliefs and life are in tune with this spiritual "reality", the better it will be for him. He will go through his life more confidently, more successfully, and more happily if his beliefs and life are in line with "truth". In a sense, all religions are a result of this spiritual search for the truth. In all the major religions of the world, the emphasis is on getting your life in line and in tune with the "truth" or "reality" as that religion describes it. "Islam" means "submission" which means "getting your life in line with the will of God." In Hinduism and Buddhism "getting your life in line with dharma" is the key idea. In the Geeta, after outlining what the spiritual "truth" as he sees it is, Krishna tells Arjuna to "do his actions according to his Kshatriya-dharma" (Ch 2:31-38). The two Sanskrit sentences: Sathyannasti Paro Dharma (there is no dharma greater than adherence to truth); and Satyameva jayate (truth alone triumphs) summarize the supreme importance of truth in Hinduism. The Buddhist credo of "Dhammam-Sharanam-Gaccha-Mee" literally means "I submit to the dharma". In the Bible, the pattern right from the beginning to the end is that God states the reality first and appeals to people to get their beliefs and lives in line with it. For example, Moses, at the fag end of his life, when he is giving a parting exhortation to the stubborn Israelites, says in Deuteronomy 30:19 - "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." The Theory of Evolution is another attempt in this "search for the truth" to give an explanation to the way things are, from which have come the atheistic religions of today - humanism, communism, socialism and so on.

However, unlike in the physical, material realm, things are less clear-cut in the spiritual realm. The big problem with spiritual realities is that, unlike material or physical realities, spiritual realities are not verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable. These five are the defining characteristics of "science" - they define and limit what is to be considered "science" and what is not. For anything to be considered a scientific theory or law, it has to meet these five characteristics. Since spiritual realities do not meet these characteristics, they are beyond the purview of science. It does not decrease their significance since they deal with important issues, but it leaves the field wide open for much mischief and the gurus of all religions fully exploit the lack of these five checks.

Furthermore, spiritual realities are not experienced by our physical sense organs - our eyes, ears, tongues, noses and skin. They are experienced by our spirits, our minds and emotions, our "sixth sense." That opens up the scope of subjectivism. I draw a line five inches long on a paper; you take a properly calibrated scale and measure it to find that it is five inches long. But it is not so in the spiritual realm. The objective reality may be something, our experience of that reality may be the totally opposite! "God is a loving person who loves you and cares for you" may be an objective truth as presented by the Bible, but in times of deep personal struggle or unfair treatment, a person may experience God as an uncaring, unloving person! Unlike the physical realm, the subjective experience of objective spiritual reality can be different for different people. Which is exactly why we can’t rely on our emotions in getting a handle on spiritual realities. Even in the physical realm, that is many a times seen to be the case - as in the case of optical illusions in which experience is different from person to person even though objective reality is the same. How much more in the spiritual realm! And in the absence of objective methods or criteria for evaluation, one can easily fall into the delusion that one’s experience of spiritual reality is in line with the objective spiritual reality when it is actually not.

Because of these problems, the western world, and especially the scientific community, has tended to largely ignore and look down on the spiritual realm. As that influence increases in India and other eastern countries, the youth too tend to ignore spiritual realities and run after the material, believing that material success will bring them more happiness, more joy, more peace. But of course it doesn't happen and cannot happen. We are far more than the material. A reaction sets in and then people go to the other extreme. When people realize that material success will not bring them peace, joy, happiness, a sense of purpose in life, they turn to spiritual things, as is happening more and more in the west today. But they turn to any spiritual-sounding thing that comes their way. Because of the problems associated with spiritual realities, people end up "giving their lives" for something without subjecting it to the truth-test. Because of the problems associated with spiritual realities, there is much more scope for mischief in the spiritual realm than in the physical/material realm, and ‘gurus’ and (or?) charlatans thrive. Promising peace, joy, happiness, and a purpose in life, all sorts of beliefs and claims float around and thrive. Typical conversion stories revolve around how the person found peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc. after joining a particular group. That’s okay as far as it goes, for a life with peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc. is anyway better than a life without. The big question for the person comes up when a hard truth emerges which challenges the foundation on which this peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc. is based. Then what happens to ‘Sathyannasti Paro Dharma?’ Should the person then give up his "peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc." by siding with the truth, or should he continue enjoying his "peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc." while brushing the truth under the carpet? If he chooses the latter, he may succeed for a while in continuing to enjoy his "peace, joy, happiness, purpose in life etc." But what he has brushed under the carpet doesn’t go away. It continues exerting its niggling pressure on him, making him uncomfortable. The ‘peace’ he knows was only a fragile peace based on a lie. Because real peace comes only when our lives are aligned with truth and not with a religion. Because of the importance of these terms, let’s first clearly define what we are talking about.

Definitions. We have defined truth as "what corresponds to reality." A dictionary definition is "the state of being the case, the body of real things, events and facts, actuality, the body of real fundamental or spiritual reality, an agreement with facts." Basically "truth" is the objective reality of what the facts are. Our perception of that reality will be (and is bound to be) subjective, but the objective reality remains objective.

What is "religion?" The dictionary definition of "Religion" is actually much broader than what is popularly understood. Religion is defined as "a set or system of beliefs held to be unquestioningly true, generally with faith and ardor; accompanied by a set of practices in line with the held beliefs." This broadens the scope of "religion": besides what are commonly considered religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. By this definition, Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism, Nationalism, Humanism, Hedonism etc. can also be considered as "religions" since they conform to the above definition of religion. These are all belief systems held unquestioningly, with faith and ardor, as much as the usual religions. This is neither to exalt nor to denigrate them, not even to consider them better or worse than the usual religions, but to put them in the same category, and on the same level, and as of the same type essentially, as the usual religions. They have their own dogmas. And their followers can be as dogmatic as the followers of the usual religions. For example an atheist can be as dogmatic (without any proof) that "There is no God" as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu, who is dogmatic that there is a God. The atheist can be as unquestioning and as blind about his belief, as the Hindu or Muslim or Christian. And when presented with hard (and significantly hard) evidence such as gaps in fossil records, which go against their pet Theory of Evolution, Atheists can be as mulishly stubborn as any other religionist, even more so. All religions have their own sets of beliefs. And the followers of religions like Atheism are many a times, more blind and more zealous for their own set of beliefs than the followers of the traditional religions.

Many would be surprised at my putting "Atheism" as one of the religions and I guess I owe a word of explanation there. Firstly, it is a belief system with a clearly defined set of beliefs "There is no God" or "Why there is almost certainly no God." Secondly, most of its followers hold its main beliefs to be as unquestioningly true, as a Muslim holds the primary beliefs of Islam to be unquestioningly true. Talk to a committed atheist to find out. Thirdly, the faith and ardor seen in some of its followers is as much as that seen in the fundamentalists of other religions. Fourthly, there is a set of practices which are in line with the beliefs.

And finally, when confronted with hard evidence which contradict their beliefs, they are as quick to brush them under the carpet as any other religionist. For example, the celebrated Richard Dawkins in his "The God Delusion" devotes just two pages (out of 400) to the very important evidence of gaps in fossil records which contradict the Theory of Evolution. Most of these two pages are taken up by making fun of Creationists, and making vague and purposefully distorting statements such as (quote from pg 153) "Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of gradually changing intermediate fossils. Some are not and these are the famous gaps." "Many evolutionary transitions?" I have gone through plenty of "Creation vs. Evolution" websites and have found hardly any which can be seriously considered as evoultionary transitions! "Elegantly documented?" Then how come Dawkins himself doesn’t (can’t?) give even one single example? "More or less continuous series of gradually changing intermediate fossils?" The examples given by evolutionists seem to be highly contrived and hardly seem to be examples! And "Some are not?" Look into the hard evidence (it’s freely available on the internet) and you will find that it’s "Most are not!" I wish Dawkins would have been specific and quantified the expressions instead of using vague words like ‘some’ and ‘many’, and given specific examples of what he considers ‘evolutionary transitions’.

The quantitative discrepancy in fossil records is far more glaring than the qualitative one. After all, which are intermediate fossils and which are not, can be open for debate and argument. But the number and percentage of these are objective criteria and are not open for debate, and it is here that the discrepancy is most glaring. Millions and millions of fossils have been found till now. If the Theory of Evolution was truth, then atleast 70-80% of these should have been intermediate fossils. But even by evolutionists’ own admission, not even 1% of them can be seriously considered as intermediate fossils! That is too huge a discrepancy for any honest and unbiased atheist, to be brushed under the carpet under the vague terms ‘some’ and ‘many.’

But brushing under the carpet is not to only way religionists treat hard evidence that goes against their beliefs. Flying into a rage is another. Dawkins quotes a certain John Ruskin on pg 143 as saying, "If only the Geologists would let me alone. I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verse." Such behavior is typical of religionists when confronted with hard evidence contradictory to their beliefs.

Let me give one more quote from Dawkins’ book as to why I consider Atheism a religion. On pg 35 he writes:

That doesn’t sound like science to me at all. It sounds like Religion! What Dawkins is saying in other words is that "We believe there is no God. We don’t have evidence to support this belief as of now, but hope to have it in the future. Sure there are plenty of unexplained phenomena which seem like miracles today, but we hope that one day we will have an explanation for them which shows that these ‘miracles’ were no miracles, no actions of any God or supernatural forces, but simply a play of natural forces which we have not understood today."

We don’t know which miracles he is talking about, but the miracles done by Jesus would be a strong contender. In any case it doesn’t matter, since he is talking about miracles in general, and Jesus’ miracles are anyway the most well-known and have anyway been strong targets of atheists, as Jesus did attribute the reason for his miracles to his faith in God. So let’s use Jesus’ miracles for discussion. First of all, it was Jesus who did those miracles, not Dawkins. It was Jesus who calmed a storm by simply commanding it, not Dawkins. It was Jesus who walked on water, not Dawkins. It was Jesus who healed the blind, deaf and mute by simply commanding, not Dawkins. It was Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead by simply commanding him, not Dawkins. Basic honesty, integrity, humility and commonsense demands that we accept Jesus’ explanation for the miracles, not Dawkins’. Jesus’ explanation was simple and straightforward – these things are done by faith in God. Not only so, Jesus added that we could do the same things (even greater things) if we have faith in God. "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done." (Mat 21:21, also in Mark 11:23)

When Dawkins does such things, his explanation can be considered seriously, not now. At this point, he has no explanation, only a hope for an explanation in the future. It’s really his word against Jesus’, as far as the question of the existence of God is concerned. It’s really faith in Dawkins vs. faith in Jesus. So why should anyone put their faith in Dawkins? What objective results does Dawkins have, to show for his faith that "there is no God?" As compared with Jesus’, what are Dawkins’ achievements, that his belief about the non-existence of God should be considered seriously?

Next, Dawkins has used the word "hope" and not "faith." Normally, we use the word "faith" when our belief is according to the nature and character of its object, and use the word "hope" when our belief is contrary to the nature or character of its object. Suppose we have planned a meeting at a certain time. When speaking of a person ‘X’ who has shown the habit and history of being on time, we would use the words "I have faith he will be on time." But if another person ‘Y’ has had a habit and history of always being late, we use the words, "I hope he is on time today!" The word "hope" is used in case of ‘Y’ because "being on time" is against his history! Now if Dawkins has used the word "hope," then it itself shows how inspiring the history of Atheism has been in coming up with explanations for previously unexplained phenomena! I hope (!) that this one paragraph is unfair, that when Dawkins used the word "hope" it was a slip-of-the-tongue and not a carefully considered appropriate word to express what he wanted to actually express. But then, does it not make the situation worse for him by bringing the truth out?

We will have much to talk about Atheism when we examine Dawkins’ book in detail on another page on this site. But for now, having shown that Atheism is as much a religion as any other, let’s get back to our definition of "religion."

This definition of "religion" broadens its scope to include belief systems such as Atheism, Agnosticism etc. However in another sense, by using the words "held to be unquestioningly true," it slightly narrows the scope of what is to be treated as "religion." By this definition, certain beliefs in the religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Atheism etc.) may have been questioned, put to the test, and proved to be true. In which case they can be moved to the category of "Truth." For example, after the Reformation, the most natural question people asked was "What else has the church lied to us about?" and a large number of very basic questions were asked (especially in Germany) about Christianity. This included the very basic question, "Did Jesus really exist, or is the whole story a fabrication of the church?" People with high levels of intellect and integrity examined these questions for years, going over the evidence with a fine comb. Albert Schweitzer’s unbiased "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" is an excellent survey of the whole exercise. Today, the historicity of Jesus is an accepted fact, the question having withstood the hardest questioning by skeptics. But till this questioning took place, the historicity of Jesus was "held to be unquestioningly true" and hence fell under the definition of "religion." Today, since it has been thoroughly questioned and withstood the questioning, the issue of the historicity of Jesus has moved under the heading of "Truth." And most interestingly, the behavior of the church over this issue has also changed appropriately! Today, if someone wants to question the historicity of Jesus, he is most free to, and the church does not try to bludgeon him into submission, because there is a whole lot of material available which he can study for himself and come to the same conclusion if he is an honest seeker of truth, sincere and unbiased in his search.

Thus we will have to be careful of what we are talking about. Are we talking about "Religion" or "the religions?" There will be occasions when we are primarily talking about the broad set of beliefs that are associated with a certain name such as "Christianity" or "Hinduism" or "Islam." In such cases we will use the terms "the religion" or "the religions" (with a small "r"). But mostly, we will be talking about those "unquestioned and untested beliefs which are held to be unquestioningly true" and to denote them, henceforth, we will be using the term "Religion" (with a capital "R") to distinguish them from the religions such as Christianity or Hinduism. Many a times, these "unquestioned and untested beliefs which are held to be unquestioningly true" are a part of "the broad set of beliefs that go with a certain name such as Christianity or Hinduism or Islam. Hence it would even be appropriate to use a phrase such as "Religion within the religions" to denote the "unquestioned and untested beliefs which are held to be unquestioningly true within the broad set of beliefs that go with a certain name such as Christianity or Hinduism or Islam." We cannot paint the entire set of beliefs that constitute a religion with the same brush, we have to take the specific belief and examine it separately. To give specific examples, we don’t paint all beliefs of Christianity with the same brush. As will be clear from other pages on this site, "The historicity of Jesus" is a belief which has been tested and moved to the category of "Truth"; while "The Trinity" is a belief which after testing, is more appropriately moved to the category of "Lie!"

I am not interested with comparing or pitting one religion against another. I am not interested in "Hinduism vs. Christianity" or "Christianity vs. Islam" or "Hinduism vs. Buddhism" or "Christianity vs. Judaism." Rather, I am interested in "Truth within Christianity vs. Untruths within Christianity", in "Truth within Hinduism vs. Untruths within Hinduism" etc. The big fight for me is between "Truth" and "Untruth," not between one religion and another. And "Truths" and "Untruths" are found within all religions. This principle is to be applied to the holy books also. I am not interested in "the Bible vs. the Geeta" or "the Bible vs. the Quran" kind of fights. Rather, I am interested in "Truth within the Bible vs. Untruth within the Bible", in "Truth within the Geeta vs. Untruth within the Geeta" kind of fights. And even the very interesting "Truth within the Bible vs. Untruths within Christianity (e.g. Trinity!)" and "Truth within the Geeta vs. Untruths within Hinduism (e.g. worship of gods other than the supreme)" kind of fights! The primary fight is between Truth and Untruth, not between one religion and another.

It is a common factor amongst all religions that they consider their set of beliefs to be the "truth." It’s not only that the traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism which claim that "their" set of beliefs is the truth, but even the religions of Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism etc. claim that "their" set of beliefs is the truth. No religion even considers the possibility that certain of its beliefs may not be the truth, may not be according to the objective spiritual reality, the objective spiritual "facts" as they are. The fun begins when a religion is confronted with incontrovertible proof that its beliefs are wrong. The immediate reactions from the religions (the religions of atheism etc. included) are typical – a denial, then an argument or a presentation of its side of the story. If the person presenting the incontrovertible proof sticks to his guns, generally one of two things happen – either the religious person flies into a rage and tries to browbeat the factual person, or he philosophically "leaves it to life" to "show him that he is wrong." Rarely if ever, is there a questioning of one’s own beliefs, that they might possibly be wrong. This behavior seems to be ingrained in man’s nature and I myself have had to struggle to overcome this tendency in me, a necessary victory if one has to arrive at the truth. When the questioning happens, progress starts.

As an example of what happens when a religion is confronted with incontrovertible proof, take the well-known case of the belief in the sun-centric solar system. Until the sixteenth century, it was believed that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that the sun, the moon and the stars revolved around it. This belief was very religiously held (even though there was no real Biblical support for it). It conforms to our definition of religion as "a set or system of beliefs held to be unquestioningly true, generally with faith and ardor; accompanied by a set of practices in line with the held beliefs." In the middle of the sixteenth century, Copernicus showed that it was the sun that was the center of our planetary system, and the earth and the other planets revolved around it. His theory fit the observations much better than the earth-centered one, yet he faced tremendous opposition and was not accepted. More than 60 years later, Johannes Kepler gave mathematical foundations to Copernicus’ theory, describing the laws of planetary motion, and the ability to predict their positions accurately. But because of the firmly embedded religious beliefs, the sun-centered belief system still did not find acceptance. A few years later Galileo, with his telescope, provided incontrovertible proof that Copernicus and Kepler were right, that a sun-centric system was the "truth," and the earth-centered conception of the universe, held firmly and religiously for thousands of years, was false. The result? He was made to recant publicly, at the cost of death.

How is this process accomplished? How is the process of painfully ripping Religion out of us carried out? In the opening paragraph, I made a statement which is worth repeating here - The way to test whether something that presents itself as truth is not to accept it blindly by faith, but to hammer it with all your might, with all your strength, with all your intelligence, with all your skill, with all your ability, and with all the resources at your disposal, ruthlessly and relentlessly, in a sustained and systematic manner. Only when it can withstand such a hammering, should it be accepted as the truth. Not only can truth withstand any amount of intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering, it will actually win! Truth is a merciless destroyer of false beliefs. And Religions don't stand a chance in front of truth if the beliefs they espouse go contrary to it. That does not mean that the process is a quick and easy one. Far from it. Religions don’t give up easily. They are quite stubborn mules.

So how is this process practically accomplished? One doesn’t go out of one’s way to "hammer one’s own beliefs" to test them. That goes against our very grain, our very nature. We all love our Religions, we all love our own belief systems, we all consider our own belief systems to be the truth. We hate questioning our own beliefs. We have too much of a vested interest in continuing in them. We have given enough of our time and our life to them. Our emotions are attached with them. Our lives have been built on them. Questioning them opens up the possibility that we may be proved wrong. That is like having the ground beneath our feet shaking up! And we don’t like that, so we don’t question our beliefs naturally. And I too have been no exception to this.

In practice, what happens is that life itself does the hammering, by bringing us in contact with people having beliefs contradictory to ours, or by presenting hard, incontrovertible facts to us which militate against our existing beliefs. When that happens, our natural instinct is to shy away from any conflict. The Religion in us ensures that. We go out of our way and make every effort to try to avoid any conflict. But strange as it may seem, THAT CONFLICT IS THE PRIMARY WAY IN WHICH TRUTH DESTROYS THE RELIGION WITHIN US. FOR THERE TO BE A VICTORY OF TRUTH OVER RELIGION (first in our hearts, then in the public realm), THERE HAS FIRST TO BE A WAR BETWEEN THE TWO. WITHOUT WAR THERE IS NO VICTORY. Since the Religion in us hates conflict or even any challenge to itself, it has to be forced into it. Life does that forcing by bringing us into contact with people with beliefs contradictory to ours in our day-to-day life. But that still doesn’t guarantee the necessary war within us. Life can take the horse to the water but cannot make the horse drink it. Life can bring us in contact with people having beliefs contradictory to ours, but it cannot force us to allow our beliefs to be questioned. That’s up to us. It’s we who decide what happens next. Our natural self-preservation instinct is to go into our shells and avoid the challenge to our existing beliefs. The defensive mechanism within us springs into action and we retreat into our cocoons. "Retreating into our cocoons" doesn’t mean keeping our mouths shut! It primarily means keeping our minds and hearts shut. The mouth may well wax eloquent about the virtues of our own Religions, but if our minds and hearts are shut, we have truly retreated into our cocoons, no matter how much externally active we (and our mouths) are. The defensive mechanism also supplies us with enough "rational" and "sensible" explanations to lull us into believing that we are right.

What happens if we allow that conflict to take place? PROGRESS! Progress, either way. If I am right and the other person is wrong, then my beliefs get strengthened. If I am wrong and the other person is right, then I am better off getting corrected anyway. In any case, there is PROGRESS! Progress for us towards the Truth. Progress for Truth in its war with Religion. One more battle won by Truth over Religion making its position stronger.

ALLOWING OUR EXISTING BELIEFS TO COME IN CONFLICT WITH CONTRADICTORY ONES is the process by which we make progress towards the Truth. Obviously the process has to be done carefully and sensitively. Emotions are involved. But it has to be done, because only when it’s done, that there is progress.

Truth prevails only when false beliefs die.

False beliefs die only when they are defeated.

And they can be defeated only when they are engaged in conflict. Positive conflict is necessary for the defeat and death of false beliefs. Wise people do not avoid positive conflicts.

The wiser ones seek it.

That is at a personal level. What about the societal level? The war between Truth and Religion can be looked at as going on at two levels – the personal, individual level, and the collective, societal level – the personal victories coming first. At the personal level, progress takes place when we allow our existing beliefs to come in conflict with contradictory ones. How does progress take place at the collective, societal level? At the societal level, progress takes place when MEN OF INTEGRITY TAKE A FIRM STAND FOR THE TRUTH. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, all took a firm stand for the Truth and took opposition from Religion (and the religions) for their stand, but ultimately Truth won. When their firm stand brought the existing beliefs of more and more people into conflict, pressure was exerted by TRUTH on the false religious beliefs held strongly by the vast majority of the people. When the tipping-point was reached, Religion gave way and Truth recorded its public victory. The private victory of Truth over Religion came first, when Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo allowed their existing beliefs to come in conflict with contradictory ones. The public victory came when they took a firm stand for the Truth. It was not immediate of course, Copernicus did not see it in his own lifetime, but his public stand was a crucial factor in the ultimate victory of Truth over Religion.

All this may make it sound as if there is no truth in the religions. That’s obviously not so. We have to be careful here. The religions would not have lasted so many years if there were no elements of truth in them! In fact, religions themselves are formed as a result of this "search for the truth." How are religions formed? All religions are formed when the search for the truth itself leads to a point where an explanation for observed phenomena is accepted as the truth. Take the example of the earth-centric universe itself. Thousands of years back, man made the most elementary of observations – that the earth seems stationary under his feet while the sun, the moon, the stars and all the heavenly bodies seem to move around it. From that observation, man "concluded" that the earth was stationary at the center of the universe, while the heavenly bodies moved around it. When that belief got ossified into an "unquestionable belief," it became Religion. Similarly, when Newton’s laws of motion gave a good explanation for observed facts and became "unquestionable beliefs," they became Religion. Until Einstein came along with his Theory of Relativity. Strangely, in his later years, Einstein himself became religious about the steady-state theory! Till then, the steady-state theory (that the universe was always, and will always remain in a steady-state) was the generally accepted theory. His own work clearly pointed to an ever-expanding universe, but Einstein refused to accept it till the end of his life. So also, many scientists of that time. Only when evidence became too overwhelmingly in favor of the expanding universe, did the Religion of the steady-state theory give way to the belief in the expanding universe, finally paving the way for the big-bang theory.

Truth has thus to be always treated as provisional. Although truth by itself is objective, absolute and complete, our experience and realization of it is subjective, relative and incomplete. If the measure of truth we have, whether in the physical sphere or the spiritual, is treated as absolute and complete, then progress stops. Progress stops when the attitude is proud and arrogant: "I have got it all. My beliefs are the truth and all who cannot see it the way I do, are still to come up to my level." Progress happens only when the attitude is humble: "Maybe I am the one who has got it wrong. Maybe the other person is right. I need to consider seriously what he is saying." That does not mean you accept anything blindly. To repeat the statement in the opening paragraph: The way to test whether something that presents itself as truth is not to accept it blindly by faith, but to hammer it with all your might, with all your strength, with all your intelligence, with all your skill, with all your ability, and with all the resources at your disposal, ruthlessly and relentlessly, in a sustained and systematic manner. Only when it can withstand such a hammering, should it be accepted as the truth. That too, provisionally. There is always a possibility that tomorrow, we may come across new evidence that proves what we consider truth today, as untruth. We have to think in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. I quote the following from Richard Dawkins’ "The God Delusion" (pg 73). It deals with the belief in the existence of God vs. non-existence of God, but the concept can be used for any other set of contradictory beliefs:

1. Strong theist, 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G.Jung, "I do not believe. I know."
2. Very high probability, but short of 100%. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God’s existence and non-existence are equiprobable."
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don’t know whether God exists but I am inclined to be skeptical."
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain, but I think that God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God with the same conviction that Jung ‘knows’ there is one."

Dawkins puts himself under category 6, but leaning towards 7. I put myself in category 2, but that too only for leaving open the possibility that maybe someday, there may be some definite proof that there is no God. At this point though, there isn’t any such proof.

We have till now spoken with examples generally in the physical realm and things of the past – the examples of the belief in earth-centric universe, or smallpox as a blessing from the goddess Kali. I have purposely done so because these are easy to accept, firstly being physical/material and secondly being in the past and far removed from us. When we move to the spiritual realm and things of the present, things become difficult firstly because claims are not verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, or falsifiable, the five defining characteristics of "science." And secondly because we are still "within the situation," we are not looking at things "from the outside" or with the advantage of hindsight. When we start questioning a Hindu’s belief in the various gods and goddesses or in the Bhagavad Geeta, or a Christian’s belief in the Trinity or the entire Bible as the Word-of-God, or an Atheist’s belief that there is no God, we are talking about present beliefs, and beliefs which are not verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, or falsifiable. Furthermore, we are talking about beliefs on which people’s lives are built on today, we are talking about things in which there are vested interests! We are not talking dispassionately about things that affected "those people hundreds of years back." We are talking passionately about things that "we, here and now, believe in and have built our lives upon." Emotions are involved, there are stakes in the existing belief systems, there are vested interests in continuing in those, in maintaining the status-quo.

Is there any way in which we can overcome some of these difficulties and make our job easier? Yes there is. And that is to gain perspective by looking at a brief history of the nature of religious beliefs that prevailed in the past but are no longer in existence. That would loosen our attachment to our present beliefs. With that perspective, we may see that our present beliefs are not cast in stone, and maybe, some of our present beliefs themselves are slated for destruction at our very own hands!

Earlier, I said that all religions consider their set of beliefs to be the "truth." Obviously! Which religion admits any of its tenets to be a lie? Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism, Nationalism, Humanism, Hedonism, all consider "their" beliefs to be the truth. These are the common religions of today. But when we take a look at the religions of the past, we see an interesting picture. They too claimed that their beliefs were the truth. Then too, people believed that they were "right" and those who didn’t hold these beliefs (that should include all of us!) were wrong! Then too, people were passionate about them. Then too, people built their lives on them, and indeed entire civilizations were built on them. Then too people held on to them as stubbornly as people do today to their beliefs.

Let’s gain perspective by taking a quick look at their beliefs. Faiths and religions have beginnings in history, and (thankfully) more than 90% of faiths and beliefs that have ever existed are now dead. There are a large number of gods and goddesses who were once very powerful but no-one even remembers or knows them now; and faiths which were once held strongly by a large number of people, no-one subscribes to them now.

The earliest civilizations that we know something about is the Sumerian in ancient Mesopotamia (3100-1960 BC). The history of the Sumerians falls into three periods - Early Sumerian (3000-2700 BC), Classic Sumerian (2700-2250 BC), and Neo-Sumerian (2100-1960 BC). It is reconstructed chiefly from epic poems, scattered historic records and thousands of business documents. The Amorites dominated the region from 2000 to 1595 BC and the Kassites from 1595 to 1174 BC, to be followed by Assyrian domination started by the warrior kings Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC), Shalmanessar III (858-824 BC). The Babylonians regained control from 626 to 597 BC under Nabopolasser and Nebuchadnezzer and were strong until Cyrus defeated Belshazzar on 16th October 539 BC. Mesopotamia was ruled by the Persians till 332 BC - Darius (522-486 BC), Xerxes (486-470 BC), Artaxerxes I (464-423 BC), and Darius II (423-408 BC). Alexander the Great conquered the region and ruled from 331 to 323 BC. It passed on into the hands of the Selucids (312-64 BC) and then of the Parthians and Sassanians until its conquest by the Arabs in AD 541.

Lists of the names of deities with their titles, epithets and temples have been compiled. Although their total goes to over 2500, the actual number of deities worshipped in any one period was considerably less. The importance of the gods varied over time and place. As the land changed hands, new gods rose in importance.

At one time in Babylonia, Anu was the king of heaven and the chief of gods, with his principal temple being at Uruk. His wife was Innana or Innin. Enlil, the air-god, was his son who ruled over the earth. His wife was Ninlil or Ninhursag. The goddess Ishtar was in charge of love and war. Enki was the god of fresh waters that gave life, and also of wisdom. He was seen to be very favourable to mankind, to whom he revealed the means of learning the mind of the gods through divination. His temple was at Eridu and his wife bore the names of Damgal, Ninmah and Damkina. He had a son Marduk who was the patron god of Babylon, and gradually raised as the king of all gods and the creator of the universe when the Amorites came to power. His son Nabu was highly honoured. Nebo was the god of wisdom and writing. Shamash, the sun, was the god of justice. Sin, the moon, was worshipped with his wife Ningal in the temples of Ur and Harran. Adad was the god of rain and storm. Nergal and his wife Ereshkigal ruled the underworld. He was the lord of plagues, fevers and maladies. Nabu or Nebo, the god of science, had his temples in many cities. Many deities were of importance in certain localities. Ashur was the national god of Assyria. Amurru and Dagon were Semitic deities. Dummuzi was the god of vegetation. Nunurta was the Babylonian and Assyrian god of war and hunting.

Today, all these gods, once very powerful, are extinct.

Babylonia was full of demons and evil spirits. They attacked people in their sleep and brought diseases. Children were snatched and they brought a lot of havoc. People wore charms and amulets to escape from the evil, and depended on omens and divinations. Animals were sacrificed and reading the symptoms on the liver and other parts, future was predicted. Astrology developed highly and the people depended heavily on astrologers. The Assyrians and Babylonians of those days had their epics. Hundreds of stories were rampant regarding creation and the great deeds of gods.

Babylon had a lot going for it - lots of gods and goddesses, astrology, mighty spells, powerful amulets, and all kinds of occult practices. Today, near the ruins of Babylon, the only people to be seen are a few Bedouin bandits from the deserts, who roam the countryside looking for travelers to rob. In the swamps of the Euphrates, a few Arabs live in huts made of reeds and mud, built on low islands that they can leave only on flat-bottomed boats, along the narrow channels they make through the dense thickets of reeds. This land, now a desert, used to be one of the most fertile places on earth. For thirty centuries, this land supported one of the largest population groups in the world. Today, the civilization has been reduced to nothing. And gone with it, are the hundreds of gods and goddesses, long forgotten.

Next to Sumer, comes Egypt. With history as back as 3000 BC, the Egyptian empire is also one of the oldest known. Over the next 2500 years, Egypt enjoyed three periods of greatness. The first great age was the 'Old Kingdom' (2600-2200 BC) or 'Pyramid Age'. The second was the 'Middle Kingdom' (2060-1786 BC), and the last from 1070 BC.

In the climax of its culture, Egypt also believed in many gods. The chief god was Sun and was called Re, Ra and Amon. Thoth the moon god, was the god of learning and wisdom, at Hermopolis. Nut was the sky goddess. Shu was the air-god. Geb was the earth-god and Nu the god of the waters. Ra's daughter Maat was the goddess of truth, justice and cosmic order. Ptah was the god of craftsmanship. Hapi was the god of the Nile flood. Amun was the god of hidden life powers in nature. He overshadowed Mentu, the war-god and became state-god. Osiris was the god of the underworld. His wife Isis was the goddess of plenitude. Hathor was the god of love and joy at Dendera. Teneret was the goddess of birth. Some animals and birds were live images of gods. The bull represented Ptah and Ibis birds represented Thoth. Osiris was represented by the idol of a calf. Hathor was represented by the body of a man and head of an ox. Teneret was shaped like a hippopotamus.

In temples priests served the god. They woke up the gods by a morning hymn, bathed, dressed and fed them breakfast (i.e. they were given a morning offering). The food was served before the statues and finally eaten by the priests. After the morning's business, the gods had their midday meals. After supper the gods were made to sleep by singing hymns. On festival days the images of gods were carried out in procession. Only priests, kings and lords could go into the inner temple, ordinary people were not allowed. They could only see the gods when taken out in glittering processions on great festivals. People believed that the 'spirit' of the god lived in his image.

Egyptians also believed in sphinxes, monsters with animal body and human face. Anubis was the god of death. He was black with the head of a fox. He opened the gates of the netherworld to dead ones. The Egyptians believed in life after death. The body was the home for the soul and that the soul needed its personal belongings in the life after death. So they dried the dead body by burying it in shallow graves. Later on they began to pack the body in salt, stuff it, bandage it and dry it up. People believed that they could have a good life in the kingdom of Osiris after their death. The souls of the kings, on their death could go to the sun god to enjoy life.

None of these gods exist today. They passed away into oblivion when the people who worshipped them were subjected to foreign domination for an extended period. Humans with better weapons and higher motivation were more powerful than those "gods." From 525 BC Egypt, like her neighbours, was part of the Persian Empire, sometimes rebelling and becoming free again, until Alexander finally took over (332-323 BC). After him, the Greek Ptolemies ruled Egypt until the coming of the Roman Empire, and afterwards, Islam. The Egyptian gods, once so very powerful, were totally forgotten.

The people of Canaan (Palestine), the land where Christianity was birthed, in ancient times worshipped gods and goddesses which were the powers of nature personified. To them El was the father of gods, the Creator. His wife Ashera (or Ashtoreth) was the mother of gods. She was the goddess of the sea and of fertility. Hadad, also called 'Baal', the Lord, was the weather god and the god of the seasons. He gave rain and a good harvest depended upon his mercy. Astarte (or Anat), Baal's wife, was the goddess of love and war. Shamash was the Sun god. Reshef was the war god and the god of the underworld. Moloch was the fire god. Children were sacrificed to please him. Each town and village had its own favorite deity who was the lord of the town or village. These gods were brutal and bloodthirsty. They loved war and showed their greatness by defeating their neighbours. These gods were also immoral and indulged in uncontrolled sexual relationships. Stories after stories were added on to the gods according to the whims and fancies of the people. Their religious festivals degraded into sexual orgies. Each god was represented by an emblem. Baal was represented by a bull and Ashera by a lion. Idols of gods projected sexual organs testifying the sensuality of these gods and goddesses. Animals were sacrificed to please the gods. Entrails of the animals were examined by the priests and fortunes of the worshippers predicted. Also, fortune tellers predicted by gazing at the stars, by contacting the dead and by falling into trances.

None of these gods are alive today. They suffered a natural death when people left them.

The next major peoples are the Greeks and the Romans. Before we come to the actual list of gods and goddesses, an important difference is to be noted – when we come to the Greek and Roman gods, although the common people were sincere, educated people had little regard for them. They would use the forms of religion for their own ends when there was some personal advantage or a political point to gain (things haven’t changed much politically, have they?) But they knew the reality (or the lack of reality) of these gods and even made fun of them privately. The supreme god of the Greeks was Zeus. He ruled on Olympus, the highest mountain in Greece. The other gods were like people in the way they behaved - often jealous or vengeful, and immoral - but of course, they were far more powerful than human beings. When the Romans conquered the Greeks they took over all their gods and gave them Roman names. So Zeus became Jupiter, his wife Hera became Juno. His brother Poseidon, god of the sea, was given the name Neptune. Ares (Mars) was the god of war, Hermes (Mercury) was the messenger of the gods, Hades or Pluto, the god of the dead, Hepaestus (Vulcan) the lame craftsman and Apollo was the god of wisdom. His twin sister was Artemis (Diana). Athena (Minerva) was the goddess of art and war. Aphrodite (Venus) was the goddess of love, and Demeter (Ceres) was the goddess of the harvest.

These "gods" were mere men and women, in whom Homer and the popular faith saw and worshipped the weaknesses and vices of the Grecian character, as well as its virtues, in magnified forms. The gods are born, but never die. They have bodies and senses, like mortals, only in colossal proportions. They eat and drink, though only nectar and ambrosia. They are awake and fall asleep. They travel, but with the swiftness of thought. They mingle in battle. They cohabit with human beings, producing heroes or demigods. They are limited to time and space. Though sometimes honored with the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, and called holy and just, yet they are subject to an iron fate (Moira), fall under delusion, and reproach each other with folly and crime. Their heavenly happiness is disturbed by all the troubles of earthly life. Even Zeus or Jupiter, the patriarch of the Olympian family, is cheated by his sister and wife Hera (Juno), with whom he had lived three hundred years in secret marriagebefore he proclaimed her his consort and queen of the gods, and is kept in ignorance of the events before Troy. He threatens his fellows with blows and death, and makes Olympus tremble when he shakes his locks in anger. The gentle Aphrodite or Venus bleeds from a spear-wound on her finger. Mars is felled with a stone by Diomedes. Neptune and Apollo have to serve for hire and are cheated. Hephaestus limps and provokes an uproarious laughter. The gods are involved by their marriages in perpetual jealousies and quarrels. They are full of envy and wrath, hatred and lust prompt men to crime, and provoke each other to lying, and cruelty, perjury and adultery. The Iliad and Odyssey, the most popular poems of the Hellenic genius, are a chronique scandaleuse of the gods. Hence Plato banished them from his ideal Republic

Even with all these gods and goddesses, religion did not satisfy people. It offered no real answers to the questions of life and death, good and evil. These gods had no power to save their cities from certain disaster. People looked for purpose in life and thoughtful people turned to philosophy. Plato wrote down the discussions of his master Socrates, about subjects like life and death, and built up a noble system of thought. The Stoics advised people to live in harmony with reason. And the Epicureans believed that the world had come about by the chance meeting of atoms. Others made new moral lessons from the old stories of the gods. But all this had the subjective base of human reasoning and imagination, and so obviously could not satisfy either the mind or the soul, leaving them dry and thirsty. Religion had little effect on the way the worshipper lived. Neither belief nor behavior was really important. A person could believe what he wanted, as long as he did what was expected of a good citizen, paid his taxes, and remained loyal to the state. All those gods are extinct today.

In most of these religions, the sun, the moon, and the planets were worshiped as gods. Today, we know that the sun is no god. We know that it is a huge ball of fire, apx. 1.4 million km in diameter, 150 million km from the earth. We know that it made up of about 75% hydrogen and most of the rest of helium. At its center, nuclear fusion constantly changes hydrogen into helium, the loss of matter (at about 50,000 tons per second) is converted into light and heat energy. Today, we know that the moon is no god. We know that it is a satellite of the earth, rotating around the earth at a distance varying between 350,000 and 400,000 km from the earth. Today, we know that Mercury is no messenger of the gods. It was believed to be so because it moved faster than the other heavenly bodies. Today we know that it moves faster than the other planets because it is closest to the sun and hence experiences the sun’s gravitational force most strongly, to counteract which by its centrifugal force, it has to move the fastest. Today, we know that Venus is no "goddess of love," no "goddess of peace." In fact the atmosphere on Venus, with its poisonous gases, boiling temperatures, and swirling storms, is closest to the atmosphere of hell! Whereas the atmosphere on Mars (supposedly the "god of war") is very calm and serene! And today, we know that Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are no gods; they are merely planets revolving around the sun. That many people in India still worship the Sun, the Moon and planets like Saturn, shows how far we have to go as a society in aligning our lives with the truth. Back to the dead religions.

According to Aztec mythology, it is said that when all was yet darkness, when there was still no sun, the gods gathered at a place called Teotihuacan to gather counsel among themselves. Two gods, Nanahuatzin and Tecuciztecatl jumped into a sacrificial fire. One became the sun and another, the moon. No one believes such myths today.

All this points to another important fact – that just because a religion has lasted for thousands of years, does not mean that all what is says is the truth! Most of the above religions lasted for hundreds of years before they died away. Some of them, such as the Egyptian one, lasted for thousands of years. People of some of the religions of today pride themselves in the fact that their religion has withstood the test of time and have been around for hundreds of years. That is fallacious thinking. Beliefs can survive for hundreds of years for other reasons too, reasons other than that they are truth. First, they may not have faced enough assaults to be tested. Even if they have, their protagonists may have been particularly stubborn in digging their heels and retreating into their cocoons. If at the societal level, progress takes place when men of integrity take a firm stand for the truth, then there may not have been enough men of integrity taking a firm stand for the truth. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Yet as all these examples show, truth always wins in the end; and maybe some of the firmly-entrenched religious beliefs of today are slated for destruction at our very hands!

Why is it that truth always wins in the end? It may take thousands of years to do so – remember that the Egyptian gods held sway for thousands of years; but finally false beliefs die. Why is this so? It seems that there are two conflicting tendencies built into the nature of man – the religious tendency, and the truth-seeking tendency. The religious tendency serves man’s short-term need of providing certainty and security in an uncertain world, the truth-seeking tendency serves man’s long-term need of living better and better lives. And the two are in conflict. If progress is to be made in living better lives by aligning our lives with the truth, then some amount of sacrifice has to be made in the area of certainty and security by giving up existing beliefs. When explorers set out to look for new lands, they were sacrificing their short-term need of certainty and security for the sake of long-term gains. When the early settlers of America ventured into unknown lands westwards, they were sacrificing their short-term need of certainty and security for the sake of long-term gains. When Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo ventured into a new belief system, they too were sacrificing their short-term need of certainty and security for the sake of long-term gains. The two needs are in conflict.

But why is it that truth always wins in the end? And why is it that religion provides such stubborn resistance, even for thousands of years? Answer to the second question first: The need for certainty and security is a more basic need and dominates and grips most men. The vast majority of people can’t see beyond their noses. Immediate and short-term certainty and security is all that they want. Remember, we have defined Religion as "a set or system of beliefs held to be unquestioningly true." A set or system of beliefs held to be unquestioningly true provides the short-term certainty and security that is a basic need of man. But then, why is it that truth always wins in the end, overcoming even this need for short-term certainty and security? Answer: Because Truth is inherently stronger than Religion and its tendency is forcefully forward!

People who have made money at the stock-market over a number of years know that there is only one way to do it consistently – invest in good companies at the right price, and stay invested! Warren Buffet, the man who has made the most money at the stock-market says, "our favorite investment time-span is forever." They know that whatever downfall the short-term may bring, ultimately share prices go up because the long-term upward internal tendency is stronger than any short-term downward tendency due to temporary circumstances. So they simply choose to take their position in alignment with this long-term upward internal tendency and hold firm. The long-term upward internal tendency does the rest, carrying the share prices up in the long-term. Similarly the long-term forward internal tendency of truth is stronger than any short-term static religious tendency to satisfy the need for certainty and security. The wise man recognizes this and simply chooses to align his beliefs with the truth and hold firm. Truth does the rest, carrying him along. As more and more people see the truth, they too choose to align themselves to it by taking their stands publicly. Soon the tipping point is reached and Truth has taken over the minds and hearts of the vast majority too. Ultimately, it is Truth that prevails because it is stronger than Religion and its internal tendency is upward and forward while the internal tendency of Religion is static.

So then, do I have to spell it out? Stock market wisdom over the years has come up with the saying: "Only long-term investors make money in the stock-market." Don’t bears make money? Sometimes they do, and get their extra sadistic kick besides the money. But anyone who has actually tried to time a down-move knows how difficult it is. Once or twice you may get it right, but sooner or later, you get caught the wrong way and lose what you have gained. The objective is to come up with a strategy that will work consistently over the long-term, without giving you much botheration, and which does not require you to time the market because that’s been found to be impossible. The only strategy that has been found to meet the requirement is "invest in good companies at the right price, and stay invested." After saying all this, does one have to spell it out what you have to do to make money at the stock-market? After saying all that I have said about truth and religion, do I have to spell it out to you as to which side you should align your position on? It should be very, very obvious that you should be siding with Truth, not with Religion.

And yet, I do have to spell it out! Because, the vast majority still choose Religion over Truth! As said before, Religion offers the tremendous advantages of short-term certainty and security. These are huge short-term benefits which blind most people to their own long-term good. To give an example, certainty and security are the two reasons why generally people prefer to work in jobs rather than starting their own businesses despite the tremendous advantages of the latter. In your own business, for the same amount of time and effort put, you earn more money as compared to a job. Plus it offers you total freedom of time and you can do what you want when you want it. And of course it allows you to be more creative in what you want to do. You are not bound by the rules and regulations of another company. And the big one – there is no boss! In your own business, you are your own boss, free to do what you want to! With all these advantages, one would have thought that starting your own business would be the preferred choice of the majority. Yet the opposite is true – the majority prefers job over business! The reason? Certainty and security! Certainty of what you have to do, security that you will get your pay at the end of the month. Month after month, if you perform reasonably well. You are certain of what you have to do – the job description and evaluation standards clearly laid out, the scope of authority and responsibility clearly spelt out. You feel secure with the feeling that you will get your pay month after month if you perform reasonably well. If you are good at your work, you will get promoted over time, getting higher salary and better perks. And when it comes to government jobs, the picture is even sharper! While the number of applicants per job in private sector may be in the order of tens, when it comes to government jobs, it is of the order of hundreds! The vast majority still prefers a government job over a private sector job because the certainty and security a government job offers (the chances of being fired are zero) is higher than the private sector.

Religion offers similar certainty and security. The belief system, rituals and generally expected behavior are laid out clearly for you. You only have to subscribe to the belief system and behave yourself reasonably in the expected manners and you are assured of the regular pay of social acceptance month after month, year after year. If you perform reasonably well, you will even get your promotions to places of authority in your religious circle!

And so, I have to spell it out. We need to be clear about the advantages and disadvantages of being in the Truth camp and the Religion camp. The religion camp does offer the advantages of certainty and security. What does the truth camp offer in its place? Answer: Eventual Victory! If "truth alone triumphs," ("Satyameva Jayate"), then it means that it eventually wins the war against religion. Not only is its inner tendency upward and forward while religion’s is static, truth is also more powerful than religion and eventually overcomes it. That is guaranteed.

The problem is that it may not happen in your lifetime and you may not get to share in the benefits of its victory personally. We need to be clear about that too. This is where the ultimate reason for standing firmly for the truth comes in – that standing firmly for the truth, is itself its own reward. You get that "undefinable something" which nothing else gives, which nothing else can provide. That is why "Sathyannasti Paro Dharma" (there is no dharma greater than adherence to truth). World history shows that men of integrity who have realized this, have chosen to even give their lives in standing firmly for the truth, rather than save themselves by recanting from the truth, knowing fully well that it is better to die for the truth rather than live a life of lie.

All this may make it sound as if there is no truth in the religions. That’s obviously not so. Religions would not have lasted so many years if there were no elements of truth in them! But that’s precisely the problem – religions have only "elements of truth" in them! Yes, religions provide the obvious starting-point in our search for the truth in the spiritual realm, since they claim to answer the very questions we are concerned with. However, over the years, religions have proved to be a curious mixture of truth and lies, as will be clear from the other essays, and it is our job to distinguish between the truths and the lies. All religions of course claim that their beliefs are the truth. Obviously! Which religion will claim that its beliefs are false? Unfortunately, history has proved religions to be a mixture of truth and lies and it is our job to discern between the two. It is our job to find out which portion of a religion is the truth and which the untruth. But how do we discern?

How do we arrive at truth? How does a judge arrive at the truth? By blindly accepting what the lawyer is so eloquently presenting as the truth? Of course not. While everyone else in the courtroom is amazed at the beautifully logical presentation being made by a lawyer, and is sure that this lawyer is surely going to win the case for his client, the judge is patiently hearing the lawyer's arguments, carefully taking notes on his scribbling pad. He then starts asking searching questions, hammering at the lawyer's arguments one by one. He does so with all his skill and ability, knowledge and understanding. He does it in a systematic and sustained manner. Only when the lawyer's presentation can withstand the hammering does he accept something as the truth. It is not that he has all the proof needed, in fact sometimes definite proof may not even be available. But the fact that the lawyer's case has withstood an intelligent hammering is good enough to accept (or at least not reject) his proposition. Accepting something blindly by faith is no way to arrive at truth. That way you may believe a lie as truth all your life!

Before we begin, there a couple of things we need to be clear about. There is a fashionable belief around today that "truth cannot be known", closely aligned with the belief that "truth is subjective" and that "each one should believe what seems right to him." We are of course, talking about truth regarding ultimate realities, truth regarding the big questions of life, the answers to which give meanings to our lives. This essay, and all related essays, considers such a belief to be self-defeating and does not subscribe to it. If you start out with the belief that truth cannot be known, you will never get to the truth. If you start out with the belief that truth can be known, you stand a better chance at getting to the truth, and may possibly get to it. It is the same as in the field of sport - "If you start out by believing that you cannot win, then you will never win; but if you start out by believing that you can win, then you stand a much better chance of winning and may possibly win." And we know from experience that "sooner or later, it is not the person with the superior skills or the superior ability who wins, but the one who believes he can." Likewise, sooner or later, the person who gets to the truth is the one who believes that he can do so, not the one who believes that truth cannot be known.

And of course, the assumption that "truth can be known" is meaningless without a belief that "truth is objective." The belief that "truth is subjective" is fashionable but does not stand up to scrutiny. A common example given by people to support the belief that "truth is subjective" is that of an elephant and four blindfolded men. Each are led to touch different parts of the elephant's body and are asked as to what it is that they are touching. The first one, who touches the elephant's trunk says that he is touching a big fat hose-pipe. The second one, who touches the elephant's tail, says he is touching a rope. The third one, who touches the elephant's leg says that he is touching the trunk of a tree. The fourth blindfolded man is led to touch the elephant's ear, says that he is touching a big hand-held fan! And so is reality, it is said. This argument, although attractive, has one important basic flaw - the fact that each of the four blindfolded men experience the truth differently doesn't make the truth subjective, it only makes their experience of the truth subjective. The objective reality of the elephant is still there, and all it needs is the removing of blindfolds for the truth to be seen. And what happens if a person who is not blindfolded, tells the blindfolded men that what they are really touching is an elephant? Most probably he would not be believed (he may even be laughed at), because the "experience" and the prejudices of the blindfolded men prevent them from believing the truth! This essay proceeds on the assumption that truth, yes spiritual truth, is objective. We may experience the truth subjectively, and indeed we do, but that still does not take away the objective nature of spiritual truth. Indeed these two beliefs - that the truth is objective, and that it can be known, underlie any meaningful search for the truth; without these two beliefs, any "search for the truth" is meaningless and a waste of time.

Objective truth in the material or physical realm is verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable; and hence falls under the purview of science. But objective truth in the spiritual realm is not verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, or falsifiable; and hence, is outside the purview of science. Now if we are operating on the assumptions that the spiritual realm is important, that there are objective truths in the spiritual realm, that these objective truths can be known, yet maintain that these objective truths can only be experienced subjectively, and this subjective experience is all that we have and can have, then the question arises: how do we know for sure that what we believe as the truth in the spiritual realm, is indeed the objective truth? Answer: We don’t! And indeed, we can never! Truth in the spiritual realm has to be always treated as provisional and always thought of in probabilistic terms. I have already given before, a 7-point scale as a framework for clear thinking for the question "Does God exist?" As said before, it is more appropriate not to think in terms of "God definitely exists" or "God definitely does not exist," but in terms of "There is a much higher probability of God’s existence than of his non-existence" or it’s opposite "There is a much higher probability of God’s non-existence than of his existence." Even in the realm of physics, where claims are "verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable," we have learnt to think of truth in probabalistic terms rather than absolute ones. Earlier, thought was in terms of "a certain particle is present at a particular spot, or the mass of the particle is so much." Now with Quantum Physics and the Theory of Relativity, we think in terms of "the probabality of the particle being present at a particular spot is so-and-so, or the probabality of the mass of the particle is so-and-so." If in the scientific realm, where we are dealing with physical realities, we are thinking in probabalistic terms, how much more we should be doing so where we are dealing with spiritual realities?

However, this is not as much as it seems when it comes to the practical, day-to-day living in the spiritual realm just as in the physical realm. In physics, the problem of uncertainty comes into the picture only when objects are moving close to the speed of light where principles of Quantum physics and the Theory of Relativity have to be applied. But on the practical day-to-day level, Newton's laws are still good enough to serve practical purposes. Similarly in the spiritual realm, while thinking or talking fundamentally the theist and the atheist have to think probabalistically and leave room for the possibility of God's non-existence or existence respectively, but while acting practically in day-to-day life, the theist can continue acting as if God exists and the atheist can continue acting as if God doesn't exist.

Okay, so we learn to think and talk in probabalistic terms. But even then, how do we come to conclusions such as "There is a much higher probability of God’s existence than of his non-existence?" Answer: Results! Our experience of spiritual truth may be subjective, but its results are very much objective! Jesus believed in the existence of God. The atheists don’t. Neither Jesus or the atheists gave (or can give) any proof for their beliefs. The existence of God belongs, and is bound to belong, to the spiritual realm, and it’s experience largely subjective. But the results of Jesus' belief was objective and in the physical realm! Caught in a storm, when Jesus rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still," the wind died down and it was completely calm (Mark 4:39). The result was verifiable, it was objective and seen by others. Jesus had objective results to show for his belief about the existence of God. What do the atheists have? Talk! A lot of hot air, and a number of theories (which break down under intelligent, systematic and sustained hammering). If they rebuke a storm, nothing happens. If they have no proof that there is no God, nor do they have objective, verifiable results as to the accuracy of their beliefs, why should anyone put faith in their theories? If I have to put my faith in anyone, I would rather put my faith in someone who shows objective, verifiable results. And anyone would be justified in the probabalistic statement, "In view of the fact that Jesus had objective, verifiable results in the physical realm, and gave the explanation for these as his faith in God, in view of that fact, the existence of God is of a much higher probability than the non-existence of God." That’s as far as we can go, and should go.

These two beliefs - that the truth is objective, and that it can be known, are very important. If the truth is not objective, then any search for it is meaningless. The beggar may daydream that he is the king, and that would become the "truth" for him! His explanation that he experiences himself as the king, that he feels that he is the king, is mere hallucination; and has no objective and physical effects outside. When he commands people, nobody obeys him; in fact people laugh at him and make fun of him. If truth is only subjective, then each of us can make up our own ideas of what constitutes truth and believe in them with all our hearts; yet the sane person recognizes them for what they are. A lot of such stuff goes on under the name of religion, and we need to recognize such emphasis on subjectivity for what it is, if we are truly interested in arriving at the objective truth. Our "experience" has to be in line with truth; never the other way around. Because, as we know, truth doesn't budge. And if truth doesn't budge, then sooner or later, our experience has to budge and come in line with the truth. Life ensures that. And the sooner our experience of life comes in line with the truth, the better it is for us; just as the sooner the beggar gives up his delusions about being the king, the better it is for him.

The second belief is equally important for carrying out a meaningful search for the truth - the belief that the truth, which is objective, can be known. If it cannot be known, then obviously any striving to know it is doomed to failure from the beginning and a waste of time. Who searches for something that can never be found? These two assumptions underlie everything that follows and as far as this essay and the related essays are concerned, are postulates without proof. If you don't agree with these two postulates, you might as well stop reading here. Back to our judge.

What follows from the probabalistic mode of thinking is that truth cannot be "proved". To use legal language, it can only be "established on available evidence beyond all reasonable doubt." Since ultimately we do experience all objective truth subjectively, we are really concerned here with "what is most likely to be the truth" rather than "what is the truth!" According to the Geeta, we take multiple rebirths. According to the Bible and the Quran, this birth is all that we have; after death we stand before the judgment seat of God and are destined to either heaven or to hell. Who of us has seen what happens after death? As for those who have come back from the dead, how do we know that their testimony is true and reliable? However that does not mean that our situation is impossible and we have to resign ourselves to the self-defeating attitude that "the truth cannot be known" or to vague and airy generalities like "all religions teach the same thing". Our situation is similar to a judge facing a murder case. A man is caught escaping from the scene of murder at the time of murder, with blood on his clothes. His fingerprints are found on the murder weapon and on the objects around the dead body. He is known to have a good motive for committing the murder. There is no contradictory evidence available. All evidence points to his having committed the murder. Of course, no-one has "seen" him commit the murder, least of all the judge who passes the judgment. Does it stop the judge from convicting the accused? Of course not. Why? Because there is "evidence beyond all reasonable doubt" that the accused has indeed committed the murder. And what happens if there are two or three possible people who could have committed the murder? Then the judge would simply examine all the evidence before him, and pass his judgment as to which of the persons was "most likely to have committed the murder" on the basis of "evidence beyond all reasonable doubt." That's what we have to do, and that's what we will do - establish what is "most likely to be the truth" on the basis of "evidence beyond all reasonable doubt."

This also raises the distinction between the "verifiable" and the "unverifiable", a very important distinction to keep in mind when we are dealing with meta-physical claims made by the truth-claimers. The Bible claims that all human beings stand before the judgment of God to be sent either to heaven or to hell. The Geeta claims that the soul takes on another body after death. These claims are clearly unverifiable, and are supposed to be believed by faith. Fair enough - no verification is possible for such claims. There are however other claims which are verifiable. For example, the Bible claims that Jesus defeated death and rose again from the dead, a claim flatly contradicted by the Quran. According to the Quran, Jesus never died, but was taken to heaven directly and another body substituted in his place. Both these claims do fall under the purview of verifiable history, and can be put to the test, something that we will do further on in another essay.

However, a number of claims fall in the meta-physical realm and are not verifiable. Here the distinctions have to be made between "plausible", "possible", and "probable", again a very important distinction to be made. "Plausible" means "thinkable." In our example of the murder case, suppose the defense lawyer puts forth an argument that his client had not committed the murder, that actually aliens had alighted from a space-ship in the balcony of the house, came in, and murdered the victim; and that his client just happened to be there, and was innocent. The aliens went away leaving no proof that such a thing had happened. What would the judge do with an argument like that? He would throw it out into the dustbin! Does that mean that such a thing could not have happened? Of course not! It could be the very thing that may have happened! Yet because it is such an "unthinkable" explanation, no one would give it any serious consideration. For the lawyer to be taken seriously, he has to provide reasonable evidence that such a thing may have happened.

However, if the defendant lawyer argues that his client is innocent because there was another man present at the place, and it was he who had actually committed the murder, then his case is treated more seriously because the explanation is more "possible." The judge would take him more seriously. But the lawyer’s job is not done. He has to prove to the judge that it was more "probable" that the other man committed the murder. Only then would the judge change his verdict. Always and at all times, the judge keeps his mind on the distinction between "plausible", "possible", and "probable." But we are digressing. Back to the judge’s methods.

What methods does the judge use? If these are our postulates - that truth is objective, and that it can be known, and that the exercise of getting to know it is very important, then what are our methods going to be to arrive at the truth? First let's go through the methods which we cannot use to arrive at the truth, methods that are unfortunately used extensively by the religions. The first method, used very extensively by the religions, is the "experience" method. "Believe first, then you will experience it as the truth." Of course you will! We all know how it works – the mind has chosen to believe something, and then it gathers evidence to support it. It pounces on experiences confirming the belief and suppresses those that go against it. This method, though very widely used by the religions, is absolutely useless when your objective is to arrive at the truth. What would a judge say to a lawyer who pleads, "First believe that the opposite party is guilty, then you will see that he is guilty!" The judge would laugh at such an argument and throw it out immediately. Akin to the phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecies, self-hypnosis, auto-suggestion etc., this method relies on the fact that one ends up experiencing whatever one strongly believes in! If you start off with the belief that Jesus alone is God, then your experiences will be in line with that belief. If you start off with the belief that Allah alone is God, then your experiences will be in line with that belief. If you start off with the belief that all gods are the same and all lead to the same destination, then your experiences will be in line with that belief. And if you start off with the belief that there is no God and the Theory of Evolution is truth, then your experiences will be in line with that belief too! Believing first is no way to arrive at the truth, because what you believe first may not be the truth! As it happened with those people who believed that the earth was flat and that the sun and the moon and the stars revolved around it. All these beliefs have to be tried and tested by intelligent, sustained, and systematic hammering. To arrive at the truth you don't start by believing. In fact, just the opposite – you start by doubting and questioning! You may end up believing after you have tried and tested the beliefs and the beliefs have withstood your hammering, and that's proper and in order; but by believing first you may be believing a lie as truth all your life! Healthy Skepticism is a very important tool in arriving at the truth!

Then there is the method of continuous (and sometimes forcible) repetition; and the religions use it also extensively. When the same ideas are bombarded to you day in and day out, sometimes with little freedom to explore contradictory ideas, then obviously the beliefs that will be formed in you will be in line with what is repeated over and over again. But it is not only the religions that use this method extensively, the scientific community and educational institutions do it too! ... However, this principle of continuous repetition is not always negative, it has been used by personal motivation and self-development programs for displacing negative attitudes with positive ones. Psychologists have estimated that it usually takes at least six exposures to an idea for it to become completely internalized. It works like this (along with the psychologist jargon):

First Exposure (Rejection): I reject it because it conflicts with my preconceived ideas.

Second Exposure (Resistance): Well, I understand it, but I can't accept it.

Third Exposure (Partial Acceptance): I agree with the idea but have reservations about its use.

Fourth Exposure (Full Acceptance): You know, that idea expresses just what I have been thinking.

Fifth Exposure (Partial Assimilation): I used that idea today; it's terrific!

Sixth Exposure (Full Assimilation): I gave that idea to a friend today. The idea now truly belongs to me!

Marketers, life-insurance salesmen, college-boys wanting to woo particular girls, all use this method of displacement by continuous repetition; and the religions are experts at it, having been at it far longer than marketers and life-insurance salesmen. However, this too is no way to arrive at the truth. We are all aware of the well-known saying that "A lie, repeated enough number of times, starts appearing as the truth." When our objective is to arrive at the truth, we have to be wary of this particular method which dulls the intelligence by continuous bombardment.

The third method widely used by the religions, and equally useless in arriving at the truth, is the method of "testimonies of personal conversion!" Testimonies don't prove a thing. For the number of testimonies that Christians could cite of Hindus converted to Christianity, Hindus could cite an equal number of testimonies of Christians converted to Hinduism! Testimonies of personal conversion are only testimonies of the person seeing things differently, not necessarily correctly and accurately. Testimonies don't prove anything. If they did, the testimonies of Hindus converted to Christianity and Christians converted to Hinduism would prove contradictory things!

The fourth method very widely used by the religions in explaining their point is "analogies". Analogies also don't prove anything, and are equally useless for arriving at the truth. Analogies are very useful for communicating, and all good writers and orators use them extensively for that purpose. They communicate clearly and simply what may be difficult-to-understand concepts. However, they don't "prove" anything, nor are they any good as evidence. Take a look at two analogies used by Jesus and Krishna to communicate what happens after death and which are contradictory statements. Jesus used the analogy of what the fishermen did everyday to communicate how it will be on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 13:47-50) : "The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Krishna uses another analogy to communicate a contradictory scenario - that of the transmigration of the soul when he says in Geeta 2:22, "As old and worn out garments are given up and new ones are accepted by a man, the soul similarly gives up the old and worn out body and accepts another new body." But just because a man gives up old and worn out garments (which is true) doesn't necessarily mean that the soul takes up another body (which may or may not be true). Just because a fisherman collects the good fish and throws the bad away (which is true) doesn't necessarily mean that the angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace (which may or may not be true). Neither of these analogies prove anything. If they did, they would have proven contradictory things! To keep our sanity intact we have to recognize that these analogies are used only to communicate, not to prove. We need to avoid the trap of considering analogies as proofs if we are to make any progress towards the truth.

Another trap one has to avoid studiously is the confusion of "possible explanation" with "proof". For example, the phenomenon of people "remembering" past lives and accurately telling about things which they could not have humanly known about, is advanced as a "proof" of re-incarnation. Those who don't believe in re-incarnation, such as Muslims and Christians, have a ready explanation for such phenomena - that there are enough number of evil spirits out there willing to give such "knowledge" to specific individuals. We need to be clear that both of these are only "possible explanations" of observed phenomena, not proof.

One also needs to be on the lookout for sweeping statements of faith made in emotional outbursts if one has to arrive at the truth. Here's a paragraph from a book on the Quran:

Such sweeping statements can easily be found in the literature of other religions too. Here's one about the Bible:

And here's what appears on the back-cover of "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" (published by ISKCON):

To a hard-headed judge seeking the truth, all this is nothing but a lot of self-praise. No one denies that a person's life may be improved by following some of the tenets of the Quran or the Bible or the Geeta, but we are concerned with "truth" here. And as every judge knows, sweeping statements and emotional outbursts are many a times not very helpful in uncovering the truth; and an ignored fact to which no one has paid any attention, can in fact actually provide the vital clue in uncovering the truth! So just as a judge interested in arriving at the truth would, we need to treat all such oratory with a pinch of salt.

Such emotional statements are many a times combined with subjectivity. All subjectivity has also to be thrown out if one has to arrive at the objective truth. Here's one instance of subjectivity (taken from the preface of "Krishna: The Supreme Personality of the Godhead", published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust):

On the other hand, the Bible says that only Jesus was without sin - "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." (Hebrews 4:15); "Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26); "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22); "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21); "And in him is no sin." (1 John 3:5)

And according to the Bible, everyone else on the other hand, is with some sin or the other, having commited atleast one sin in his entire life - "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23); "The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin." (Galatians 3:22); "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8); "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." (1 John 1:10) Everyone else has sinned. That should include Krishna, of course.

One can of course make up one's own definition of sin and consider oneself sinless by that definition. I once overheard a Gujarati lady saying (no offense meant to Gujarati ladies please - I love Gujarati food!), "We don't sin; we never eat non-vegetarian food!" Her definition of "sin" was "eating non-vegetarian food." Here's an actual conversation between a person who considers Jesus sinless, and another who considers Krishna perfect:

One can "prove" that anyone is perfect - all one has to do is change one's definition of "perfection" to fit the person one wants to prove is perfect! To prove that I am a perfect person, all I have to do is to define a perfect person as "anyone in this world whose name is Awdhoot Khandekar!" To arrive at the truth, we need to avoid such subjectivity which gets us nowhere. Just because someone believes that Krishna is perfect (by his own definition of "perfection") doesn't make him perfect. Just because someone believes that Jesus is perfect (by his own definition of "perfection") doesn't make him perfect either. And just because someone believes that the revelations given to Muhammad are the ultimate truth doesn't make them the ultimate truth. Just because someone believes the Quran to be the Word of God doesn't make it the Word of God. Just because someone believes the Bible to be the Word of God doesn't make it the Word of God. Just because someone believes the Geeta and the Vedas to be the Word of God doesn't make them the Word of God. Such subjectivity has to have no place in our search for the objective truth. Something can be accepted as the "Word of God" only when it not only withstands the severest of intelligent, systematic and sustained hammerings, but actually wins! Since none of the religious texts withstand such a hammering when treated as wholes, and only parts of them are able to do so (as will be seen later on, on other pages on this site), only parts of them can be accepted as the truth.

Then there is the belief that their own religion is "superior" to other religions! The Muslims believe that their religion is "superior" because it is the last, the final, the ultimate revelation of God. The Hindus believe that their religion is superior for exactly the opposite reason - that it is "sanatana", eternal, given before all other religions, the oldest! The Christians believe that their religion is superior because Jesus Christ alone is God Incarnate and is the only way, the truth, and the life. The Buddhists believe that their religion is superior because it is the most compassionate of all religions. The atheists believe that their religion is superior because science has provided adequate explanations for the presence of life and there is no need for any God. You can invent your own definition of superiority to fit whatever is unique about your beliefs and live in your own little cocoon all your life believing that your religion is superior. As far as this essay is concerned, there is only one definition of superiority - whatever is truth is superior! And to arrive at the truth, you need to be objective in your approach and shun all subjectivity. All claims have to be tried and tested. To arrive at the truth you don't start by believing that what you already believe is the truth. You may end up by believing that your belief is the truth after you have tried and tested all the beliefs. That's proper and in order. But believing first that your belief is the truth is similar to the belief of a frog who has never seen any other pond, that his small, dirty, filthy, stinking, mosquito-infested pond is the biggest, best and most beautiful place on earth!

That effectively throws out a vast number methods and techniques used by people to support and propagate their particular beliefs. Just as well. We are busy people. We have our work and our business to manage, with all the pressures of clients' deadlines. Plus we have wonderful children who spell "love" as "t-i-m-e", like all kids do! In the search for truth, if we were to waste our time on such methods, we will never even get started! Or keep our sanities intact while doing so.

Well, what methods do we use then? If all these methods, so extensively used by the religions, are absolutely useless as far as arriving at the truth is concerned, what methods will do the job? The methods we will use, and which will do the job of arriving at the truth (or rather, what is most likely to be the truth) are the methods a judge uses to arrive at the truth. They are methods which are more at home in the courtroom than in churches and temples and mosques. They are more appropriate in the hands of a good judge than in the hands of preachers. They are more in place in the analysis a judge gives in the reasons for his particular judgment, than in sermons and discourses. They are methods that a judge is trained to use, rather than the preacher.

The first thing a judge does is get his facts clear. The first thing to do is to get our facts clear. On one side, what are the known, indisputable facts about life as we know it now? On the other side, what is a religious text or a religion actually claiming and what is it not? The second is not as simple as it seems. Within Christianity itself, there are hundreds of sects and sub-sects, many of them teaching contradictory things, and each claiming to base its beliefs on the same Bible! Within ‘Hinduism’ there are so many beliefs that experts are even hard-put to come up with a definition of ‘who is a Hindu’ and ‘what are the core beliefs of Hinduism.’ To objectively arrive at what the Bible, the Geeta or the Quran actually says, we need objective rules and criteria. The rules for the Bible are listed under Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says". The rules for other religious texts would be similar.

After getting the facts clear as to the two sides, the next step is to see: "How do these two square up with each other?" Once he gets his facts clear, the next thing a judge does is to compare the conflicting pictures the opposing lawyers are painting, to the known facts. The lawyer of person ‘A’ is painting a picture that shows that it was ‘B’ and not ‘A’ who committed the murder. The lawyer of person ‘B’ is painting an opposing picture which shows that it was ‘A’ and not ‘B’ who committed the murder. In the second step, the judge examines both the pictures to see which provides a better fit to the known and unquestionable facts. He doesn’t accept anything blindly. He questions and cross-examines the accused and the witnesses to check and cross-check the accuracy of the pictures the two lawyers are painting. He also does something very important - he goes through the "falsification" process. Physical realities, in which "truth" isarrived at by scientific methods, are verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable. Out of these, the first four are not applicable to spiritual realities, but the fifth one is, to a certain extent. And we can make use of this characteristic of "being falsifiable to a certain extent" to arrive at spiritual truth. Hence we can use it, and since we would use it in the rest of the pages when and where applicable, it is important to be clear about it.

What is the falsification process? In a sentence, it is the attempt to try to falsify a statement to find out the truth about it. What you do to find the truth is not gather supporting evidence to prove a statement right, but its very opposite. You actually try to gather evidence that contradicts it, and when in spite of your best efforts to do so you fail, then you provisionally accept the statement to be true. Provisionally, because the moment you come across a contradictory piece of evidence, you reject the claim. The proces is best understood by the example of a game.

The game, in which there is one game conductor and any number of participants, is this: The game-conductor tells you three numbers (which we will call x,y, and z) which fit into a "rule", which is written on a piece of paper that he holds in his hand. This "rule" can be looked at as the "truth" about the three numbers. Your objective is to guess this "rule," this "truth" that has been written on the piece of paper in his hand by giving him another series of three numbers, to which he will answer "Yes" or "No" according to whether your series of three numbers fit into the "rule" or not. You can have any number of tries. When you think that you have got to the rule on the paper, you can raise your hand and state the rule. If your rule tallies with the rule written on the paper, you win. If it doesn't, you are out of the game.

Now let's say, the conductor gives you the following series: 2,4 and 6. These three confirm to the rule written on the piece of paper in his hand. Your task is to find that rule, the "truth" behind the series by throwing at the game-conductor another series of three numbers, to which he will answer "Yes" (if your series fits) or "No" (if your series doesn't fit). How will you go about it? What number series will you come up with? The unintelligent, the dumb, the unthinking, will come up with series similar to 2,4,6. I must confess here that my own first reaction was to give the series 3,6,9. Just shows how unintelligent, dumb, and unthinking I was. The game-conductor immediately said "Yes." Immediately the rule formed in my mind "y=2x, z=3x". But was I ready to raise my hand? One mistake and I would be out! After all there could be plenty of other rules also, to which the three numbers 2,4,6 comply. One possible such rule is y=x+2, z=x+4. So now there were two possible rules in my mind. I gave the series 18,20,22 to which the game-conductor said "Yes." Now an interesting thing happened in my mind. 18,20,22 did comfirm to the rule "y=x+2, z=x+4" but it did not confirm to the rule "y=2x, z=3x". I now knew for sure that whether or not the rule on the paper confirmed to "y=x+2, z=x+4" it definitely did not confirm to "y=2x, z=3x". I had "falsified" the possibility "y=2x, z=3x" by coming up with a series which contradicted it. This was the way to finally get to the truth, to come up with a series of numbers which actually contradicted the "possible rule" in my mind.

Now the possible rule in my mind was "y=x+2, z=x+4." Having learnt a little about how to go about finding the truth, I would now not give a series of numbers which were likely to fit this rule, but to give a series which would contradict this rule. So I give the series 87,88,89 expecting the game-conductor to say "No." But to my surprise, the game-conductor said "Yes!" The series 87,88,89 also fit into the rule! Thank God I had not been hasty in raising my hand up, else I would have been out by now!

A plethora of possible rules started flooding my mind. And the way to test them was to come up with a series that did not comply to those rules. "All three are integers" came up in my mind. "28.75, 35.42, 76.37" I said. "Yes" said the game-conductor. "All three are integers" was crossed out of my mind. "All three are integers or non-integers" came up another possibilty. "17, 18.53, 23" I said. "Yes" said the game-conductor. This possibility was also crossed out. I had heard four "Yes" answers from the game-conductor and wanted to hear a "No" so that I could work on it further. Mmmmmm... what had I left out? Negative numbers. Yes, negative numbers! "-1,-2,-3" I said. "No" said the game-conductor. Aha! This could be explored further. "-300,-200,-100" I said. "Yes" he said! Ugh! The next possibility "The numbers are either only positive numbers or only negative numbers." "-6,8,20" I sais, "Yes" he answered. One more possibility crossed out.

The only possibility that was left was the one he had answered "No" to i.e. "-1,-2,-3." Now what was common between this and all the other series to which he had answered "Yes?" Answer: They were all in ascending order i.e. y > x and z > y! Could this be the "rule" the "truth" written on that piece of paper?

By this time I guess you have got the method to test this possibility. The method to test this possibility is not to come up with another series of numbers which confirms to it (for example 17,28.254,39), but to come up with a series that possibly contradicts it. "1000,8.63,-4" I ask, and he says "No." This could be tested further. "23,17,36" I ask, "No" he says. "-12,-24,-36" I ask, just to double-check on the first rule that had come to my mind. "No" he answers. I now throw back a number of series which contradict the rule "the three numbers are in ascending order," but which get mixed responses to the other possibilities mentioned above and even some other ones which have not been mentioned above.:

"56,35,7" I ask, "No" he answers.
"35,56,7" I ask, "No" he answers.
"56.35, 7, -17.2374748593903" I ask, "No" he answers.
"125, -7, 17394940192828273763456" I ask, "No" he answers.
"18273495849303,17,-152638" I ask, "No" he answers.
"14,14,14" I ask, "No" he answers.
I modify the "possible truth" to the statement "the three numbers are different and are in ascending order."

"0,0,0" I ask, "No" he answers.
"-30,-20,-10" I ask, "No" he answers.

At this point, I am ready to raise my hand. Now there are some very important conclusions to draw about the process used to arrive at the truth, the most important one being the one mentioned in the opening paragraph of this essay -

The way to test whether something that presents itself as truth is not to accept it blindly by faith, but the exact opposite - to hammer it with all your might, with all your strength, with all your intelligence, with all your skill, with all your ability, and with all the resources at your disposal, ruthlessly and relentlessly, in a sustained and systematic manner. Only when it can withstand such a hammering, should it be accepted as the truth.

That too, provisionally, I add here. For even at the point I was ready to raise my hand in the game, I might have left out some possibilities which did not enter my mind. Even with this method, you can only test the possibilities that you are aware of. The truth can actually be always something different. But since we can't test what we are not aware of, what has not entered our realm of possibilities, we have to leave it alone to the theoreticians.

I am a practical person. The reason I was willing to raise my hand at a particular point was that I wanted to win the game. Yes I was aware of the possibility that the rule on the paper was something that I had not thought of, but I had also tested out enough possibilities and arrived at one rule which seemed good enough to commit myself to it. If I had not, I would have been a mere theoretician, an armchair philosopher, forever thinking and never acting, forever dwelling on everything but never acting on anything, forever being a spectator and never a participant. I have a healthy dislike for armchair philosophers. So I stick my neck out and raise my hand. If I am right I win the game. If I am wrong I will be out.

And with that, we come to the second important conclusion. When you raise your hand and stand for what you believe is the truth, you cannot be dogmatic about it. You may have always left out a possibility which didn't enter your mind. In real life, there is no rule written in black-and-white on any piece of paper. The analogy of the game does not apply there. You can only come closer and closer to the truth, by eliminating one after the other, possibilities which are "not truth" i.e. which are lies, by continuously hammering at the truth-claims that are presented to you in real life. Back to our judge.

The third and final thing the judge does is to pass his judgment. He goes from the known to the unknown, from the provable to the unprovable. Does he need to have definite proof before passing the judgment? Not necessarily. Definite proof may not be available. If a hundred people have seen a person commit a murder, and all testify to it, then it can be considered definite proof. But what if no one has seen the murder being committed? Then the judge passes his judgment when a picture gets "established on available evidence beyond all reasonable doubt." Many of the things claimed by the religions cannot be proved, they can only be "established on available evidence beyond all reasonable doubt." According to the Geeta, Krishna is supposed to have created the universe. According to the Bible, Jesus is supposed to have created the universe. Who of us was there thousands of years ago to have witnessed it? According to the Quran, Muhammad was given revelation by the angel Gabriel that the Creator God does not incarnate. According to Christianity and Hinduism, the Creator God can incarnate and has incarnated in the form of Jesus and Krishna. According to the Geeta, we take multiple rebirths. According to the Bible and the Quran, this birth is all that we have; after death we stand before the judgment seat of God and are destined to either heaven or to hell. Who of us has seen what happens after death? As for those who have come back from the dead, how do we know that their testimony is true and reliable and not just a play on their minds caused by indoctrinated beliefs?

These things are supposed to be believed by faith, and that’s okay. But it cannot be blind faith. Before we make the move from the known to the unknown, from the provable to the unprovable, we go through the first two steps. First, we get the facts right. Next, we compare known facts with the picture of spiritual reality painted by the religions. The credibility of a religious belief is tested by how well known facts fit the picture it is painting, how correctly it shows already known landmarks. Just as the credibility of a map is tested by how well known facts fit it, and how correctly it shows already known landmarks.

Religions can be compared to maps. Just as maps give a schematic representation of the truth of the lay of the land and directions to get to your destination, religions give first a description of spiritual reality as they see it, and directions to reach your destination (godhood, nirvana, submission to the will of God, self-realization, evolution, or whatever). The measure of the correctness and usefulness of a map is "how much does it fit known facts?" and not "how beautiful it is," nor "how familiar I am with it." If a map shows a mountain where there is none, it cannot be trusted, and you would be better off keeping it aside even if it was the first map that fell into your hands, or even though it is the most beautiful map you have. Similarly, the measure of how true a belief system is, is "how much does it fit known facts?" not how beautiful it is or how familiar you are with it. If it is found that doesn’t provide a good fit to known facts, you would be better off keeping it aside even if it was the first belief that fell into your hands (generally the religion that you were born in). You need not keep the whole of your religion aside, for all religions are a mixture of truths and untruths. You keep aside only the untruths in your religion, not the things which have been tested and proven as truths. You don’t throw the truths of your religion out with the untruths, just as you don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water.

When we make the move from the known to the unknown, we need to be clear that we are basing our move on the assumption that if the picture of reality painted by a religion fits known facts, then it is more likely that the picture of reality painted by it is likely to fit unknown facts also. When a judge accepts one lawyer’s painting on the fact that since it has provided a better fit to known facts, it is more likely to provide a better fit to unknown facts also, he is only making a provisional judgment. What if new facts emerge in a few days time such that the opposing lawyer’s painting provides a better fit? Then the case is re-opened! All "truths" have to be treated as provisional! If in the past century, we have learnt to treat even "truths" in the scientific, physical realm as provisional, how much more should we treat "truths" in the spiritual realm as provisional! If anyone was so wedded to the steady-state theory that he was not willing to accept the theory of the expanding universe, he would have been bulldozed by now! Bulldozed by the mounting evidence against the steady-state theory and for the theory of the expanding universe. Truths in the physical, material realm, the domain of science, are supposed to be verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable. When even such "truths" are now treated as provisional, how much more "truths" in the spiritual realm which are not verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, experimentally repeatable, and falsifiable?

We can’t take the arrogant attitude that we have "got it all." Humility and a willingness to consider the possibility that "I may be wrong" are key ingredients in the search for the truth. That does not mean that you accept anything anyone else (including I) says blindly. It means that just as you don’t accept someone else’s beliefs blindly, you also don’t accept your own beliefs and reject the other’s beliefs blindly. It means that you are willing to consider the possibility that you may be wrong as regards your current beliefs. Sure, you subject the other person’s beliefs to the intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering mentioned above; but more important, you subject your own beliefs to an intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering. And only when whichever belief stands firm in the face of the intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering, you provisionally accept it as the truth. Until new facts emerge to challenge it.

Enough said. It’s time to move on. But before we do that, I would like to slightly modify our main task statement for practical purposes. It is a slight modification, but a very important one since it’s going to save us a lot of time. Earlier I have said that, "All religions are a curious mixture of truth and lies, and it is our job to distinguish between the two." This is going to be our main task in the pages to follow. However, before we move on to do that, for practical purposes, I would modify that statement to, "All religions are a curious mixture of the truth, the lies, and the irrelevant, and it is our job to distinguish between the three." The reason for this modification is that a large part of the religions also consist of "the irrelevant" and being practical people, we need not waste our time on that. For example, I find a large part of what is said in the Puranas to be irrelevant, and from my discussions, I find that many thinking Hindus agree. So we need not spend so much time on the Puranas, and concentrate rather on the Bhagavad Geeta, since that is what most thinking Hindus build their lives on. We are concerned with finding the truth about the big questions of life – "Who am I? What am I here for? What is the purpose of my life? Is there a God? If yes, where is he? What is he like? Why did he create us? Why did he create this universe? Why are things the way they are? Why is there so much evil, pain, and suffering in this world? Why is there so much injustice? Why do we have to struggle so much just to even live properly? What happens after death? Is there a life after death?" It is the Bhagavad Geeta which addresses questions such as these, and it is questions such as these which we are interested in, not in the shenanigans of the thousands of gods and goddesses. So we can concentrate our focus on the Geeta, and ensure that our energies are not frittered away on irrelevant stuff.

The same applies to other religions too. The Bible too addresses the life-questions mentioned above. But within the whole Bible there are big question marks over Paul’s writings and in some places, Paul seems to contradict Jesus (see Paul's Teachings). Now according to the Bible itself, on the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus' words, not Paul's. On the Day of Judgment, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. Paul is going to be irrelevant on the Day of Judgment. As even Christians agree, if there is a contradiction between Paul and Jesus, then it is Jesus’ words that have to prevail. Now Paul’s writings contain certain things that are difficult to understand, and people with high levels of intellect and integrity have debated them for almost two thousand years now without reaching any conclusion. I would treat all such discussion as a big waste of time (see The Paul Problem ), time spent over debating irrelevant issues. Since it is Jesus who is going to matter on Judgment Day, and since parts of Paul’s writings are difficult to understand and open to wide variety of interpretation, why bother? We can completely ignore Paul for the purpose of formulating our beliefs about what is going to happen on Judgment Day.

We are not just interested in any truth, but the relevant truth, truth that ultimately matters and which makes a difference to our lives. In Hinduism we can ignore the Puranas as irrelevant, in Christianity we can ignore Paul’s writings as irrelevant. That frees us to concentrate on the truly important issues, the really important questions, the answers to which make a big difference to the way we live our lives in the here and now.

Thus our first task in the following pages is to separate the relevant from the irrelevant so that we can ignore the irrelevant and concentrate our energies only on the relevant. The way to do this is to ask the hard question of it, "How does this ultimately matter? Is it ultimately going to make any difference whether this is true or untrue? Is there any significant difference in the lives of people who believe this to be true, the people who believe this to be untrue, and the people who are totally ignorant of it?"

Our next task is to question the unquestioned (from the relevant), test the untested, and separate the truth from the untruth; so that we can reject the untruth, accept the truth and build our lives on it. The way to do this is to compare the claims made with known facts and see how they square up. There are to be no holy cows here. If anything is claimed to be the truth, it has to be willing to stand up and be put to the test. If it is indeed the truth, it will stand, it will remain. It will actually win, it will prevail. If it is not the truth, it will have to die. It is better off dead anyway.

So let’s begin the hammering, and let truth alone prevail. Let Satyameva Jayate. Maybe, some of the most well-entrenched religious beliefs of today are slated for destruction at our very hands!