A man who visits a prostitute or watches
pornography has most probably never had his mother advocate free sex to him,
nor encourage him to commoditize sex or objectify women. Yet he persists in
these activities. Why? Is his mother to blame? Perhaps we can consider the
notion of free will here.
Evil abounds in this world. But rather than
question whether God exists or not to stem it, do we question our personal
choices that perpetuate evil? Every puff of nicotine shortens the life of one’s
neighbour: do we give up smoking? Every moment spent in an air-conditioned room
increases global warming: do we turn the machine off although the temperature
soars to 45degrees Celsius? Every packaged good we buy contributes to the issue
of waste disposal of plastics: do we opt for eco-friendly measures or put our
convenience first? Our daily choices have a cumulative impact on ourselves,
others or the environment. Yet when things go wrong, we hasten to conclude that
God does not exist. We forget that the cumulative impact of our choices is very
much to blame. And those choices were made based on free will.
When calamity strikes why is the atheist
hasty to proclaim the non-existence of God? Why cannot the focus instead be on
what we, as mankind, can do to help other fellow people in distress? Otiose
deliberations about the existence of God helps no one. You see, the concept of
free will essentially shoots down the essence of the atheist’s argument. It
essentially deprives him of the opportunity to make the individual responsible
for his actions. The exercise of free will is, essentially, the reason we face
the issue of climate change, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a
selfish few, deforestation, famine, the proliferation of AIDS, corruption: the
list is endless. One can readily swerve
the issue towards God and his existence but ignore the implications of humanity’s
hedonism and self-seeking choices.
As long as deliberate harm is not attempted
on others, what enables an individual to find meaning in life is his own
personal choice and right. So much so that such a right has been enshrined in
our constitution.
The issue on Uttarakhand, rather than
triggering debates on the existence of God, should question what we, as human beings,
are doing to help those affected by the calamity. Energy channelized to appeal
to the conscience of those better off to help those suffering, would be far
more constructive than empty discourse.
