Gora (1902-1975) was a prominent Indian atheist of twentieth century. In 1940 Gora founded the Atheist Center near the village of Mudunur in Andhra Pradesh, which gradually became internationally famous.
Periyar, M.N.Roy, Ambedkar, Kovoor, A.B. Shah, Narsingh Narain and Ramswaroop Verma, too, were atheists, but none of them exclusively or mainly used the label of “atheist” the way Gora did. Thus, Gora emphasized atheism much more than others. Gora dedicated his life to removing the prejudice against “atheism” and making it an acceptable and respectable term. Apart from Gora, Periyar, too, as we have already seen, was very explicit and emphatic about his atheism.
Gora was born on November 15, 1902, at Chatrapur, now in Orissa. His full name was Gopraju Ramchandra Rao. He was born in an orthodox Hindu Brahmin family. His father, Gopraju Venkata Subbarao, was a head clerk in the Forest Department, when Gora was born. Gora's autobiography titled We Become Atheists, which he completed just four days before his sudden death on 26 July 1975, at the age of 73, contains valuable information about his life. As Gora himself says in this book, he was orthodox and superstitious in his childhood. Even at the age of 22, when he appeared for his M.A. (Botany) examination from the Presidency College (Madras), he kept in his pocket a small packet of "sacred ash" given to him by his parental aunt. At that time, he believed that the presence of the ash enabled him to pass examinations!
Gora's movement towards atheism was gradual. It was only after doing his M.A. that he lost his faith in the "sacred ash" and decided to stand on his feet. In spite of the "sacred ash" Gora had stood last in the rank out of the five students who passed M.A. (Botany) examination that year.
When Gora joined the American Mission College, Madurai, as a lecturer in natural science, he deliberately chose a "haunted" house as his home. However, he continued to be a vegetarian, which was the habit of the caste in which he was born. He also continued to wear the "sacred thread" (janeu), which the upper caste (dwija) Hindu males wear. Thus, when the then principal of the American Mission College, Rev. Wallace, suggested to Gora that he could go to Yale University for his Ph.D. and become the Rector of the Science Department provided he embraced Christianity, Gora refused. As Gora himself says, his reaction to the suggestion was that of a Hindu. He was more a Hindu than an atheist at that time.
After this event, in May 1926 Gora shifted to Agriculture Research Institute, Coimbatore, in Tamil Nadu. However, his refusal to accept Christianity made Gora think deeply on religious issues. He started wondering how Hinduism and Christianity were different from one another. He read English or Telugu translations of the Bible, Bhagavadgita, Koran, Vedas, Upanishads and other religious scriptures for making a comparative study of different religions. For five or six years, he made an extensive general study of topics like God, soul, salvation, rebirth, spirituality, other worlds, etc. He was particularly interested in abnormal and religious psychology as he found in them the clue to understanding human belief in the existence of God and soul. Because of his study and reflection, Gora concluded:
…it was man that made god out of psychological necessity in primitive times. Metaphysical justification of the existence of god was a clever after thought of civilized man to preserve the faith, at best for its use as a sanction for moral conduct and at worst for aiding exploitation of the gullible masses.
Contact with Buddhists
In 1927, Gora joined Ananda College at Colombo in Sri Lanka, which was managed by Buddhist Theosophical Society. In Colombo Gora met Buddhist priests. He listened to their discourses and studied the books given by them. In this way he gradually enriched his knowledge and moved towards atheism. Gora's wife, Saraswati, who had joined him at Coimbatore in 1926, further moved towards atheism during her stay at Colombo. She, too, like Gora came from an orthodox family. She had been married to Gora in 1922 at the age of ten only. After joining Gora, she started shedding her orthodox habits and began adopting atheistic attitudes.
After one year's stay at Colombo, Gora joined P.R. College at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh as a lecturer in botany. Gora's parents were living at Kakinada at that time. Besides, Gora had been a student of P.R. College. Thus, Gora was happy that he was going to serve his old college as well as live with his parents in their old age. But his changed atheistic attitudes resulted in clashes with the conservative and conventional ways of his parents and of his alma mater. In August 1928, Gora's father expelled him from his house because Gora refused to wear the "sacred thread", which he now regarded as a symbol of caste. Gora was declared an outcaste and he moved out of his father's house. However, two and half years after the excommunication Gora's father invited him and his wife for a dinner. This time, some orthodox relatives excommunicated Gora's parents for eating with him! A few months later Gora's parents shifted to Gora's house to live with him for sometime. Thus, Gora's alienation with his parents did not last long.
On the other hand, in 1933, Gora was dismissed by P.R. College for expressing atheistic ideas in an article titled "The concept of god", which he wrote for a manuscript magazine brought out by one of his students. In the article Gora had declared that God was a "falsehood" which ought to be "discarded".
P.R. College was inspired by the ideology of the Brahmo Samaj but openly declared atheism was too much for the management to digest. Thus, because of his atheistic ideas Gora had to leave his alma mater after serving for five years as a lecturer.
After experimenting with a private "tutorial college" at Kakinada for some time, Gora again joined Hindu College, Masulipatam, as a regular lecturer. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, who later became the President of India, was the vice-chancellor of Andhra University at that time. Though he was not an atheist, he believed that a college lecturer should not be persecuted for his unorthodox ideas. Gora was offered lectureship in Hindu College on his recommendation.
While working in Hindu College, Gora used his spare time for spreading atheism. Almost every weekend he used to go to villages around Masulipatam and address public meetings on atheism, emphasizing that God, soul and other worlds were non-existent.
Gora worked in Hindu College for five years but he was dismissed again in 1939 for his atheistic ideas. The management of the college thought that Gora's promotion of atheistic ideas was indirectly responsible for frequent strikes by students in the college. The college revoked the dismissal when the students took up the cudgels for Gora. However, the principal prohibited him from meeting students outside the classroom and banned the expression of his views on atheism, in speech or writing, either inside or outside the college! This situation was unacceptable to Gora. Therefore, he resigned and left Hindu College in 1940.
After his resignation from Hindu College, Gora was again offered some secured salaried jobs. He was now face to face with a difficult choice between the security of a salaried job and the freedom to promote atheism. By now he had had six children which made the choice even more difficult. As Gora himself says, he "valued freedom to spread atheism more than the security of a job ". Thus, with the consent and co-operation of his wife, Saraswati, and with a full sense of responsibility, Gora accepted the offer of Anne Anjayya, a freedom fighter, to settle in his village, Mudunur, in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh, and to carry on public work in the manner he liked.
Mudunur was one of the villages where Gora had earlier addressed a public meeting on atheism. Therefore, people knew him there. Two thatched huts were constructed for him on a private land just outside the village. It was called the Atheist Center (Nastik Kendra). The villagers collectively supported Gora and his family. In this way, the first known Atheist Center of the world came into existence.
Before setting up the Atheist Center, Gora had already worked as a lecturer in five colleges for fifteen years from 1925 to 1940. From 1940 to 1947, Gora worked for spreading atheism from Mudunur. In 1947, the Atheist Center was shifted to Patamata (Vijayawada).
Godless Village
At Mudunur Gora started an adult education school, organized common teas, cosmopolitan meals in "untouchable" slums, and encouraged inter-caste marriages by civil registration. Incidentally, wherever Gora was invited for a public meeting he used to insist that arrangements for his stay be made at the local "untouchable" slum. Gora also demonstrated fire-walking and exploded superstitions associated with it, besides organizing a conference of atheists. The social mingling through common teas and dinners, on the one hand, and the scientific explanation and exploding of superstitions through demonstrations, on the other, created a new awakening among the people of Mudunur and the surrounding villages. In 1941 census, 142 persons from a population of 3,000 in Mudunur classified themselves as “atheist", and Mudunur soon became known as the "godless village".
Gora's Telugu book on atheism, Nastikatvamu (239 pages) was published by his friends in Mudunur village in 1941. This book was the Telugu version of Gora's original English manuscript titled Atheism. The manuscript was ready in 1938, but could not be published because the management of Hindu College, where he was working at that time, prohibited him from publishing his views on atheism.
Gora was of the view that to be a "real way of life” atheism should concern itself with all aspects of life, particularly with the economic and political aspect. Because social relations in modern age are controlled and regulated much more by political authority than by religious faith. Accordingly, Gora and his colleagues from Atheist Center participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942 as satyagrahis.
Gora had been trying to correspond with Gandhi on atheism since 1930. In 1944, Gandhi invited Gora to Sevagram Ashram for a discussion. A narrative account of Gora's conversations with Gandhi on atheism is contained in Gora's small book An Atheist with Gandhi (60 pages), written by Gora and published by Navjivan Trust.
As mentioned earlier, in 1947 the Atheist Center was shifted from Mudunur to Patamata, a suburb of Vijayawada town. This, in its turn, facilitated widening of activities and engagements. Gora, with the co-operation of his family members and others, published several journals in Telugu, Hindi and English from the Atheist Center for spreading atheism. In 1949 he started editing Sangham (Society), a Telugu weekly. After five years, its name was changed into Arthik Samata (Economic Equality). A Hindi monthly Insaan (Human beings), too, was published from the Atheist Center from 1957 to 1961.
In 1969, Gora started publishing an English monthly The Atheist from the Atheist Center. Gora edited it until his death in 1975.
When Gora started Sangham, he introduced a column of question and answers. He continued this feature in The Atheist as well. Some of the questions and answers given by Gora have been published as a book titled Atheism: Questions and Answers. Similarly, he wrote a regular feature titled "I Learn" narrating some of the educational experiences from his rich life. These articles have been published as a book titled I Learn. Again, some of his other articles published in the columns of The Atheist have been published in the form of a book titled The Need of Atheism. Thus, Gora has many publications to his credit in English. Besides, he wrote a lot in Telugu as well.
Apart from his work for promoting atheism, Gora also practiced and preached partyless democracy and politics. Incidentally, he shared this idea with M.N.Roy and Jayaprakash Narayan. Gora regarded partyless democracy as "the political program of atheism". Gora joined sarvodaya movement led by Vinoba in 1951. He also wrote a book Why Gram-Raj?, emphasizing the need of decentralization, which was published by Sarvodaya publications. His book Partyless Democracy was published by the Atheist Center in 1961.
An Atheist around the world
In 1970, Gora went to Boston, USA, for participating in the fifth congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). He also visited West Germany, France, Italy, England, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Holland, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. In 1974, he visited USSR, some European countries and Egypt. This time he attended the sixth congress of the IHEU at Amsterdam, Holland. Gora addressed meetings and exchanged views on atheism in several countries of the world. A detailed account of his foreign visits is contained in An Atheist Around the World, which was published in 1987 on his twelfth death anniversary.
In December 1972, Gora organized the First World Atheist Conference at the Atheist Center, Vijayawada. The conference was a joint brainchild of Gora and American atheist, Madalyn O'Hair. Gora had met her in 1970 when he visited USA. However, she and many others from outside India could not attend the conference owing to a flare-up of violent political unrest in Andhra Pradesh at that time. Gora's book Positive Atheism was released in this conference.
In 1972 itself, on 15 August, Gora organized Pork and Beef Party at the Atheist Center. The idea was to "clear the mind of religious bias" and "shed sectarian associations". This was followed by several similar parties including one at Coimbatore, which was attended by E.V. Ramasami or Periyar.
In this way, Gora actively worked for promoting atheism all his life. As he says in We Become Atheists:
I wanted to know how an atheist was different from a theist in the ways of life. It appeared to me that people closed their minds with faith in god and fate. They lost initiative, became superstitious and fanatically cling to their beliefs. But god and fate were beliefs with no basis in reality. They were falsehoods. If we reject them, we stand on our feet, feel free, work well, and live equal, since all of us belong to the same kind. With this ambitious plan, I set about my life.
Gora died on 26 July 1975, while addressing a public meeting at Vijayawada.
The central point in Gora’s philosophy is atheism. This is obvious from the fact that he gave the title “We Become Atheists” to his autobiographical account. As Gora says in this book:
… in fact, many people with atheistic leanings use the terms rationalism, humanism, or free thought instead. Our specialty consisted in using the term atheism openly and giving it a positive content…
Gora was fully aware that conventionally “atheism” was equated with “wickedness”. Even Gandhi had advised him to take another name in view of the prejudice against the term “atheism”. However, Gora deliberately used the word “atheism” because, according to him, it “promises to bring about permanent change for human welfare."
An Atheist With Gandhi, which was first published in 1951, provides a glimpse of Gora’s atheistic ideas. However, Positive Atheism, first published in 1972, gives the most elaborate exposition of Gora’s atheism.
Gora's Telugu book Nastikatvamu was published in 1941. This book was based on a manuscript on “Atheism” in English, which Gora had prepared in 1938. According to Gora, whereas the unpublished manuscript of 1938 “took the traditional negative view of atheism and was a polemic in disproving the basis of faith in existence of God, Positive Atheism lays down the precise atheistic attitude towards several aspects of life”.
Further, according to Gora:
Because positive atheism asserts freedom of the individual, a detailed code of conduct is incompatible with the freedom. Theistic scriptures like The Bhagavadgita, The Bible and The Quran prescribed dos and don’ts of life from morn to eve and from birth to death, since they did not recognize the freedom of the individual. Atheism is the opposite. Therefore, Positive Atheism indicates only the guidelines for the individual to plan his or her own life with full initiative and moral responsibility.
Theism and Atheism
The first chapter of Gora’s book Positive Atheism is titled “Theism and Atheism”.
“Atheistic Philosophy”, “Atheistic Ethics” and “Atheistic Politics” are other important chapters. Besides., there are chapters on “Atheistic Economics”, “Atheistic Technology” and “Atheistic Aesthetics” as well. The last chapter of the book is titled “The Atheistic Way of Life”.
According to Gora, “theism” and “atheism” express man’s attitudes to the world around him. Human reaction to his world has been of two kinds: one, of surrender to the forces of his world; and two, of assertion over his surroundings. Surrender is motivated by slave-mind, and assertion is motivated by a sense of freedom .
Primitive man, with his poor and insufficient knowledge and weak sense of security, was more inclined to be timid and submissive than to be bold and assertive. His method of understanding was simple and analogical in anthropomorphous manner. Therefore, maintains Gora, “he imagined that a man-like god created and controlled the world and he surrendered to the concept.”
Along with God, man imagined the existence of soul, which could exist apart from the body. He conceptualized death as the “permanent escape” of soul from the body. As bodiless souls apparently needed some place to live, the existence of other worlds, like heaven and hell, and of rebirth were imagined by the primitive man.
Concept of Religion
According to Gora, religion consisted of the belief in existence of God and soul, and the influence of these beliefs on human conduct. For Gora “the essence of religion was man’s surrender to god”, and the attitude of surrender has come to be known as “theism”. This attitude of surrender freed man from the sense of responsibility and afforded him the security and tranquility of a caged bird.
However, gradually the analogical method of understanding yielded place to advanced ways of causal logic and epistemological inquiry. Consequently, the concept of God changed from “the primitive fetish” to “a metaphysical notion of ‘being and becoming’”.
Nevertheless, in spite of its apparent intellectual subtlety, the religious understanding was “spiritual” in, as much the concepts of God, soul, other worlds and after-life were “intangible”. They were “imaginary and not perceptible to the physical senses of sight, sound, taste, smell and touch”. Therefore, in Gora’s view, a further advance of rationalism carried theistic understanding from visionary spiritualism to concrete materialism.
Materialism
According to Gora, materialism, which rejects the concepts of God, soul, other worlds and after-life, because they are not perceptible to physical senses, is more realistic than spiritualism. But, materialism, too, is “theistic”, since “it requires man’s surrender to natural laws or to historical forces”. Gora characterizes “materialism” as “godless theism”.
Atheism is Positive
Thus, for Gora “theism is not so much the belief in the existence of god as man’s subordination to something regarded superior to him.” However, according to Gora “surrender is incompatible with real living”. One, who surrenders loses initiative and becomes passive, whereas living requires activity. In words of Gora:
Thus real living requires man’s active mastery over his world as opposed to passive surrender. Mastery is therefore, anti-theistic or atheistic. Whereas theism stands for man’s surrender to his world, atheism is man’s mastery over his world.” (emphasis mine)
Gora insists that:
Though “atheism” looks negative in form, it is positive in content… In positive terms “atheism” means man’s mastery over his world.” (emphasis mine)
Theism and Inequality
Since actual living needs assertion, all practice of life is, according to Gora, always atheistic. Theists think that they are not free and their lives are pre-determined by God or determined by circumstances. Nevertheless, in practice they necessarily act with a sense of freedom. To that extent, all theists are atheistic in practice. This inconsistency between theory and practice, maintains Gora, makes theists “inevitably dishonest”. The more active they are, the more dishonest they appear. Since comforts in life increase with planning, initiative and active satisfaction of wants, dishonest theists live comfortably; but the mass of theists, who honestly believe in surrender, cripple their initiative and fall into poverty. Thus, wide inequalities exist in the theistic environment, the dishonest sailing at the top and the honest sinking to the bottom in destitution.
In this way, Gora has linked the existence of inequality in society with theism. According to him, theistic faith has resulted in wide inequality in society. This inequality is unjust because all humans belong to the same kind. Distinctions of caste, class or race have “no solid foundation” and, therefore, “inequality among people is obviously unjust.”
Atheism leads to stable progress
Gora maintains that downtrodden people have two alternatives for saving themselves from the degradation of subjection. Either they have to adopt dishonesty and go the way of crooks, or they have to discard theistic faith, feel freely, act boldly, achieve satisfaction of desires and live happily as equals. “The choice is between dishonest theism and honest atheism.” (emphasis mine) Dishonesty, according to Gora may lead to temporary gains, but it does not change the prevailing system. Therefore, the adoption of atheism is the safe and stable method for fighting inequality and abolishing downtrodenness. All people are, of course, invariably atheistic in practice. If they also start thinking atheistically, they not only grow honest but they also remove restrictions on their initiative, act freely, achieve more and earn comforts in life.
Stable progress, according to Gora, is possible when atheism is adopted in totality. “Atheism in thought, word and deed asserts man’s mastery over his world without reservation and thereby establishes equality with honesty in social relations.” In words of Gora:
Tyranny does not end until slavery is abolished and slavery does not go until theism is abolished. So, freedom-loving honest persons naturally spread atheism in order to rouse the masses against tyranny of any kind.
Theism no longer necessary
According to Gora, the idea of God satisfied several needs of primitive man in a primitive way. It satisfied his curiosity and slave-mind, served as a sanction for moral conduct, provided solace in times of troubles and satisfied his aesthetic cravings. Similarly, faith is soul and ancestral worship dispelled man’s fear of death. But primitive conditions of ignorance and insecurity are no longer in existence. Technological progress has equipped human beings with power to control and subdue forces of environment instead of submitting to their savage fury. Modern man’s ideas are realistic and he no longer believes in the fanciful idea of the “other world”. Therefore, concludes Gora, “it is unnecessary for an honest man to be theistic any longer.”
Atheistic Philosophy
“Atheistic Philosophy” is an important chapter in Gora’s book Positive Atheism. In this chapter, Gora has given his views on epistemology or theory of knowledge, freedom of will, causality, natural law, concept of design and the existence of universe. He has also expressed his ideas on Gandhism and existentialism.
Epistemology
From an epistemological point of view, Gora supports the method of science. According to Gora, imaginations, which are able to stand the test of verification, are “truths”, whereas imaginations, which fail in the test, are falsehoods. Unverified and unverifiable imaginations are neither true nor false. They are simply “opinions”.
Gora points out that our senses, too, sometimes betray us. Religious devotees, for example, suffer from several kinds of hallucinations. They see the vision of God in the forms familiar to them and receive revelations in the language known to them. Thus, says Gora, hallucinations and illusions are not useful from the point of view of scientific investigation .
According to Gora, the spectrum of human understanding extends from hard facts to unverifiable fancies and “verification is the demarcating line” between truth and falsehood. Faith can never be treated as truth without verifications.
Rejection of faith in God, soul, otherworld and afterlife
The tragedy of theistic understanding, maintains Gora, consists in mistaking faith for truth. Theists may very well believe in the existence of God, soul, otherworld and after-life. Yet, these are only matters of faith, and not truths. The existence of free will is a positive proof, according to Gora, of the fact that God, soul, otherworld and after-life are falsehoods. The concept of an almighty God is false, because it denies the existence of free will.
Atheism, which asserts the freedom of the individual, understands reality by differentiating between faith and truth. Atheists make free use of imagination to acquire indirect knowledge. They form opinions, formulate theories and enjoy fancies. However, unlike theists, they proceed boldly with an open mind from faith to truth through the method of verification.
The principle of atheistic philosophy in words of Gora:
What is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known: what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognizing them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary.”
Freedom of will and determinism
Apart from supporting the scientific method of verification, Gora has laid great emphasis on the freedom of will in the chapter “Atheistic Philosophy”. We have already seen that Gora has used the existence of the freedom of will as an argument for non-existence of God. In effect, Gora seems to be saying:
If God exists, freedom of will does not exist
Freedom of will exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
According to Gora, the atheistic method of understanding requires the freedom of the individual for imagining as well as for verifying the inferences. Besides, if the freedom of the individual is denied, either from a spiritual or materialistic point of view, morality looses its basis. One cannot be moral, unless one is held responsible for ones actions. Moreover, one cannot be responsible unless one is free to choose between the right and the wrong. Because choice, morality and discipline are realities in our life, free will, too, is a reality.
Gora criticizes “theism” or “determinism”, which he regards as “the essence” of theistic philosophy, for denying the freedom of will: “… theists go so far as to consider the freedom itself an illusion. They assert that the choice which is an act of free will, is predetermined by divine dispensation, by fate’s decree, by causation, by dialectics of development, by the process of evolution or by historical necessity.”
Gora asserts that, “verification with the fact of free will reveals the falseness of all theories of determinism”.
Gora maintains that atheistic understanding “reveals the reality that man’s will is supreme”. However, this does not mean that a man can fully achieve whatever he will. In this world he is in company of things, events and fellow human beings, who, too, have free will like him. They are severally favorable, adverse and indifferent to his aspirations at a time. The final fulfillment is the total effect of all these forces.
Causality
According to Gora, theistic philosophy developed certain disciplines of understanding, which can be usefully adopted by atheism with appropriate corrections in light of empirical facts. The foremost among these disciplines is the method of causation, which lays down that events are related as causes and effects. Nevertheless, it was a mistake to interpret it in a manner leading to the denial of freedom of the will.
Atheism, on the other hand, maintains Gora, “regards the cause-effect relation not as a certainty but as a probability. The degree of probability increases with the proximity of events and decreases with their distance.” It is the existence of uncertainty, which is the basis for initiative and plan. Initiative itself, says Gora, is causeless. Therefore, the chain of causes is broken repeatedly at every initiative.
The fear of uncertainty, according to Gora, led timid theists to take shelter in causal certainty, which curbed their initiative and bred fatalism.
Natural laws
The formulation of natural laws is, according to Gora, another discipline of understanding. Human imagination correlates events, ties up the loose ends and presents a synthetic understanding in the form of law. But a closer scrutiny reveals that the laws are not inherent in the events of the world. They are, in fact, human interpretations of experiences. When fresh facts become known or fresh insight develops with experience, the form of law changes with new interpretation. Whereas theists consider natural laws as definite and irrevocable and submit themselves to them, atheists know themselves to be the authors of the laws and use them as aids. The laws are revised from time to time and used for progressive understanding of the reality.
The Concept of Design
The concept of design is, according to Gora, a corollary of the belief in natural laws. A design presupposes a designer. God who is regarded as loving and merciful is often supposed to be the designer. Gora points out that there is no consistency between God’s “love” and the existence of evil in this world:
If war, fraud and poverty, untouchability, racial discrimination, infant mortality, cancer, pest and famine were to be parts of design, the designer should be punished for wickedness rather than worshipped for love and mercy. In the face of evil, the proposition of design poses the dilemma that divinity is not all good or else it is not all powerful. If god were both good and powerful, there should be no evil.
Here, Gora has used “the problem of evil” for refuting the existence of God.
According To Gora, the concept of design is nothing but “wishful thinking”. In practice, it has turned out to be a clever ploy for reconciling honest theists to their miserable lot by making them believe in divine purpose. Atheism, says Gora, dismisses this assumption of design and awakens a sense of equality in the masses. It motivates them to rebel against political, economic and social evils.
The Concept of Universe
An important aspect of theistic philosophy, according to Gora, is the concept of the universe as a law-bound cosmos, and of all phenomena, including human beings, as part of it. Though religious people and materialists differ in their understanding of the structure and dynamics of the universe, both, maintains Gora, “agree in the existence of the universe and thereby deny freedom to the individual.”
Atheists, on the other hand, says Gora, “regard the universe as a collective concept, like that of a flock.” When several birds sit together, they give the idea of a flock. However, when each bird flies away in her own way, the flock disappears and it does not exist any longer. Yet, each bird exists by itself. Therefore, the reality lies with the existence of individual bird and not with the existence of the flock. Similarly, the universe as such does not exist. Only the several phenomena and the individual human beings exist. Their existence too is not permanent. Each one changes in form and content. Nevertheless, the collection of phenomena and of the individuals goes by the name of universe.
Thus, universe for Gora is “a collection of individuals”. As he says, “Each individual is an entity by himself, but the universe neither exists nor is an entity by itself, except as a concept of imagination …”
Whereas theistic thinking, says Gora, proceeds from universe to man, atheistic understanding proceeds from man to universe. The pre-eminence of man in atheistic understanding preserves the freedom of the individual, while theistic understanding which considered man a part of the universe, jeopardizes freedom.
According to Gora, human understanding has created several collective concepts like family, nation, society, government, world and humanity. But the individual alone is real and all institutions are collectives with no real existence. Atheists understand the relation between the individual and his society. They are aware of its importance and of dependence of system and their co-operation. Therefore, like masters, atheists use political, economic and cultural systems as instruments.
Satyagraha and Existentialism
Gandhi’s satyagraha and existentialist philosophy are, according to Gora, “large scale attempts to recognize the freedom of the individual”. In words of Gora:
As Satyagraha, asserts the freedom of the individual to know and to insist upon truthfulness, it is atheistic in principle. It could have been the starting point for the atheistic movement in this modern age. But Gandhi, its proponent clothed the explanations in the language of theism. The language of theism which was familiar to the people, gave him the advantage of easy communication with the people. But after Gandhi people reverted to the theistic ways contained in the language and paid mere formal allegiance to the principles of truth, equality, openness and non-violence. The experience reveals the need of avowed atheism for stable progress. Gandhian Satyagraha requires atheistic correction for its abiding usefulness.
Existentialist philosophy, on the other hand, has produced free and truthful individuals. But these individuals are not satyagrahis. They lack social outlook. The love of individual has stood in the way of appreciation of social obligation.
Gora maintains that inspite of their limitations, materialism, Gandhism and existentialism have advanced civilization towards atheism.
Atheistic Ethics
According to Gora, ethics or ethical conduct is the “kind of conduct that keeps human beings happy”. Further, “happiness consists in the satisfaction of desires”. A hermit, for example, feels happy with the satisfaction of his desires of otherworldly salvation through prayers and meditations. Religious believers regard such hermits as the most ethical being. However, the rise of rationalism, says Gora, makes desires realistic and this worldly. Unlike the hermit’s desires of otherworldly salvation, rational desires are related to food, home, family life and positions of honor. Man is prodded by his imagination to desire more comfort and respect. As desires grow, he must also increase his power of achievement in order to keep himself happy.
Gora points out that since man is both the author of his desires and the builder of his strength there ought to be no room for disharmony or complaint in his life. He should either curb his desires or increase his strength in accordance with his desires. Complaint, which is a sign of maladjustment, is ideal and irresponsible. According to Gora, the “pruning or proliferation of desires rests wholly with man’s own will”. While desires are wishful, powers of achievement are realistic. Complaints and disappointments occur in life, when man goes along with his wishes in easy imagination, and ignores the realities in trying to achieve them.
Power of achievement can be increased, says Gora, in two ways: By the making and use of tools or by technology, and by the cooperation of fellow men or by social organization. In technology man deals with non-human material, whereas in social relations he deals with human beings like himself who have similar emotions, sentiments, loves, hates and ambitions. According to Gora, it is relationship with fellow human beings, which brings in considerations of morality..
Honesty and Tolerance
Honesty and tolerance are, in Gora’s view, the two basic principles of moral conduct. Honesty, according to Gora, means consistency between word and deed. Unless everyone is assured that the other person does what he says and says what he does and vice versa, there can be no ground of understanding between them, and, therefore no co-operation can be possible. So honesty is an indispensable condition for common action.
Honesty, says Gora, excludes secrecy and falsehood, and requires discipline. When a person has to fulfill a promise, for example, his selfish interest and laziness tempt him into dishonesty. One should therefore sacrifice selfish and immediate gains in view of the need of co-operation in social relation.
Self discipline
Since human nature is a mixture, says Gora, of social and selfish qualities, ways and means are needed to encourage social qualities of fortitude, sacrifice and sympathy, and to discourage antisocial qualities like laziness, greediness and hatred. There are, according to Gora, three methods for keeping man moral and social: self discipline, religious faith and political power. Out of these, maintains Gora, the best method is self-discipline: “by self discipline everyone imposes on himself the duty of fulfilling promises and of maintaining honesty.”
Defects of the religious method
Though the religious method yielded some limited benefits, it was, according to Gora, undermine by its inherent defect.
Whereas the self-discipline recognized morality directly as a social need, religious belief was obviously an indirect method. It regarded morality as a means of salvation in after-life. If salvation could be obtained by other means, a believer could very well disregard his social obligations. Monasticism is a clear example of the abuse. Because religious belief invests it with respectability, idlers take to prayer, meditation, rosary and fasting instead of satisfying the rigid need of social living. From the rational point of view, hermits are a lazy lot and prayer is a waste of time.
Another defect of the religious method, according to Gora, was its commandments of dos and don'ts.
Though the details of life, from morn to eve and from birth to death were worked out in the scriptures, they get antiquated in course of time. They cannot meet the needs of new situations…The inflexibility of scriptural commandments renders dishonesty indispensable to theists. They have to gratify their current needs surreptitiously.
Thus, maintains Gora, the religious method, because of its inherent defect, failed to make man a moral being:
The fatherhood of god has not resulted in the brotherhood of man since it did not relate man to man but man to god. So, inspite of sermons and pious wishes the religious method failed to make man honest, loving and kind.
Besides, points out Gora, the need of tolerance or respect for difference of opinion received little attention in the eras of religious belief and national jingoism.
Proud of its own faith, each group clashed with the rest. Religionists and patriots killed fellowmen to please their own god or country. Common people lived under suppression with no succor except prayer to god.
Religion, according to Gora, had “no remedy for the evils of its own creation”.
Gandhi, points out Gora, greatly emphasized truthfulness and tolerance but owing to his faith in religious method, he interpreted these values in terms of faith. However, his devotion to truth removed dross from religious faith to such an extent that he started appearing irreligious, and ultimately he was “assasinated by a religious fanatic”:
Gandhi’s martyrdom to the cause of truth revealed that religious faith, however much liberalized, could not cope with the need of expanded civilization. Since, religious faith curbs initiatives and closes the mind.
Thus, Gora comes to the conclusion that ‘avowed atheism a must to build up a moral man, full and whole.”
The freedom of an atheist presents ethics in a new light. He does not move in the ruts of dos and don’ts. He recognizes that honesty is a social need and so he is honest by choice.
Satyagraha
Self-discipline becomes possible for an atheist as he feels free and lives a conscious life. Lapses in discipline, on the other hand, are checked by the open and non-violent method of satyagraha. By satyagraha one insists on another to live up to his promises and professions. Thus, Gora gives an important place to satyagraha in his atheistic ethics.
According to Gora:
When Gandhi said that no one could be a Satyagrahi without faith in god, he was showing his religious bias. Otherwise, Satyagraha is basically atheistic in as much as a votary of Satyagraha insists on his right to insist on the honesty of another in social relations. Because Gandhi did not accept atheism avowedly, the method of Satyagraha lost its strength and got sectarian in the post–Gandhian period. Adoption of atheism reinvigorates Satyagraha into an honest and powerful means of checking dishonesty.
The insistence on truthfulness, maintains Gora, does not disturb the freedom of the individual. The social obligation implied in satyagraha turns the freedom of the individual into “moral freedom”. An atheist is “free to say or do what he likes, provided he does what he says and says what he does.”
Equality
The exercise of moral freedom, says Gora, results in the establishment of equality among all people “since no open conduct can justify inequality among humans who belong to the same kind.”
Thus, Gora has given an important place to the ideal of equality in his ethics. Atheistic ethics is one and the same for all people.
When all feel free and open and sectarian attitudes of minorities disappear, all people feel equally human. The old notions of race, class, caste and nation have no place in atheistic ethics which treats all alike and bids fair to march towards the cherished ideal of one-humanity and one-world.
According to Gora, atheists dismiss the faith in destiny and determinism. They see the injustice of inequality and openly rebel against it. Further, an atheist does not bind himself to a set of dos and don’ts, which by its very nature gets outdated. He uses his initiative and says and does openly what he considers to be right. The openness of the act makes it honest and the use of initiative makes its progressive.
In this way, Gora has advocated a rational and secular ethics. His ethical ideas may be described, broadly, as utilitarian, because he regards “human happiness” as the highest ethical end, and treats moral rules as means for achieving this end.
Sexual Ethics
In the sphere of sexual ethics, Gora has advocated what he calls “promiscuity”. Interestingly, he has not discussed this in the chapter “Atheistic Ethics”, but in the chapter “Atheistic Aesthetics”. However, he has mentioned it in the Preface as well. According to him, the word “promiscuity” “without odium” conveys the sense, which he wants to convey, and therefore, he has retained the word inspite of suggestions by some to replace it.
“Promiscuity”, according to Gora, “allows free choice of the partner and gives dignity to sex relations”. Just as democracy sounded the death knell of imperialism, “promiscuity” overthrows masculine supremacy and takes a big stride towards the equality of sexes”.
In Gora’s view, “mixed marriages mark the transition from conventional marriages to promiscuity”. Inter-marriages between persons belonging to different castes, religious denominations, racial groups and nationalities “paved the way towards the development of one humanity.” Gora agrees that marriage relationship affords emotional alliance along with sex satisfaction, but, he points out, “it attaches stigma to unwed motherhood and imposes a special handicap upon the women”. Just as the Blacks are discriminated by virtue of the color of the skin., the women, says Gora, is discriminated by virtue of her motherhood:
It is promiscuity that removes the basis of discrimination by color of the skin as well as by motherhood. Wide promiscuity blurs the ethnological characters and there will be no motherhood by wedlock. The woman becomes an equal partner with man and stands as a mother to a child without reference to a father by wedlock.
Further,
Promiscuity has its outstanding advantages in the modern world. It pulls down the sectarian walls of caste, race, community, nation or region and proceeds to mingle humans into one humanity. As promiscuity spreads, ethnological features too get blended and blurred. The wide mingling of humans and the objective of one humanity removes the causes for war and conflict.
According to Gora, nothing prevents a man and a woman and their children from living together. But they ought to do so “with free choice but not in obedience to a custom.”
Other advantages of promiscuity, according to Gora, are that it limits population, as it allows the option of having or not having a child to the woman. She cannot be compelled by a “husband” to bear children against her will. Besides, “promiscuity keeps love ever fresh with the freedom to choose the companion”, instead of “formalizing” it, as in case of marriage. Above all, promiscuity “frees woman of the reproach from motherhood outside marriage, which had oppressed woman so long.”
An important outcome of promiscuity and removal of secrecy from sexual relations is, according to Gora, “development of aesthetics independent of sex”. Sex, says Gora, is as necessary for procreation as food is for satisfying hunger. The secrecy that surrounded sex “raised unnecessary curiosity and morbid interest in sex.” All the activities of the life seemed to be centered around sex. It was a “lopsided development of life which ignored the ideals of fellow feeling, moral dignity, and freedom from fear and want.” When sex is open, concludes Gora, “humans lose the unhealthy interest in it and divert their attention to nobler ideals.”