PART 3

Secular Viewpoints Examined

The theory of religious development presented by sociologists and their concept of how belief in God developed, is primarily based on their understanding of social psychology. Having observed the general tendency of man in his social behaviour, they seem to have concluded that man reveres whatever he fears and also adopts a controlled, respectful attitude to what he likes or stands in need of. Their understanding of the ‘give and take’ motives behind social order is extended to their understanding of religion, incorporating within it the motives of fear and greed.

They believe that ancient man in his naivety, as he stood just a step beyond the dividing line between humanoid and human being, confused and bewildered by all that he saw around him. Thus he failed to comprehend the true nature of things as he ventured to find answers to many a puzzling question. In the hazy light of the dawn of man’s intellect, nature’s wondrous powers so impressed him that he presumed natural phenomena to be manifestations of superpowers which were beyond his comprehension, yet were capable of influencing his life.

Consequently, he assigned to such forces the status of deities. Seeing the devastating effects of storms and hurricanes, he bowed to them in fear, lest they should strike him down. Yet again, when he saw the light of day and experienced the creative powers of the sun, he formed a beneficent impression of gods of his imagination. Seeing these manifestations through the reflective mirror of natural phenomena he could conceive them either as fearsome or benign. Thus, the dark forces of nature appeared hostile and scary such as the tidal waves and tempests and the rainstorms which brought lightning, thunder and floods in their wake.

The dangerous animals did not lag behind either, and the beasts of the jungle, the wildcats, the serpents and the scorpions also claimed their share among the assembly of the imaginary gods with evil powers. Benign manifestations of nature such as cool gentle breeze and winds laden with moisture, bringing pleasant life-supporting rains appeared on the other hand to be controlled by benign gentle deities. To the early man in his primitive thinking, they all appeared to be gods or agents of gods with differing temperaments, moods and characteristics. All such gods of his fancy were to be paid homage to, lest one should earn their wrath or lose their favour. The celestial wonders, the glorious sun, the moon and the stars with their mysterious constellations, won even more profound reverence from them in due course. Thus his rudimentary ideas of gods began to spiral upwards and gods were classified and arranged in ascending or descending order.

Although today one may criticize early man as over­ credulous, the sociologists maintain that this credulity on his part was a natural outcome of his befogged mental faculties as yet unperfected. This in short, is the widely held view of the origin of religion and its subsequent evolution by most of the eminent sociologists.

It is further argued that this primitive thought process eventually evolved to produce the idea of a single Creator. They insist that the image of one God was gradually evolved out of the belief in many gods, but not at their cost. They coexisted in an uneasy equation, struggling for supremacy, permanently locked in a grim battle. Gradually, as the universal clock ticked on, various religions came into being, developing around one concept or another, worshipping one God or many. Little did they realize in their ignorance that they were in effect, worshipping, mere conjectures. It were they who created gods—no God created them. Thus a simple primitive thought process developed, multiplied and proliferated, growing in complexity and generating much bewilderment and confusion around a myriad images of superhuman masters.

This atheistic view of religion has gone one step further in imputing to the founders of religion the act of deliberate falsehood and deception. They claim that at a later stage of its growth, religion no longer remained a jumble of superstitions of the common people. An organized clergy began to evolve. At this stage, the idea of revelation was deceitfully introduced, as a contrivance to further abet the deception of the priestly class. This elite group of religious hierarchy claimed for themselves a special status as the chosen recipients of messages from on high and acquired the exclusive role of the channel of communication between god/gods and men. Many such claimants arose in time, each claiming a close relationship with the powerful supernatural forces shaping the destiny of man.

This is what the sociologists saw reflected in Greek mythology and in the beliefs and practices of many a primitive religion. The genuine search by early man for the solutions to the complex mysteries of nature surrounding him, thus ended in a conscious attempt on the part of the religious hierarchy to deceive and defraud people in the name of god/gods.

Man’s evolving consciousness also took another simultaneous and parallel course. According to the sociologists, as his understanding of the surrounding physical world improved, so his treatment of the images of God began to exhibit revision and adjustment. The inanimate objects like idols and statues, which were previously treated as gods themselves, now began to be conceived only as channels leading to real gods who dwelt in the skies. Thus, they were gradually turned into vehicles through which the gods from on high expressed their varying moods of wrath and pleasure. The concept of ‘gods’ was thus slowly lifted from a commonplace physical palpable entity to a rare rarefied and abstract idea. The same process developed further to give birth to a more complicated system of divine hierarchy in which each god was given a particular place in relation to others, and was assigned a specific role to play in the cosmos. It was this categorization and classification of gods which culminated in the creation of one Supreme God, held to be above all others. This is how the sociologists visualize how God could have been created by human mind. In other words, were they to be assigned the task of manufacturing God, this is how they would go about it, given of course, the vast span of time required for it.

They founded their theory on the presupposition that no God exists, hence their conjecture is not based on any real investigation, but is a natural expression of an atheist’s mind. It is this pre-fixed judgement of theirs which they proclaim to be an impartial intellectual enquiry. They somehow fail to notice the flaws and contradictions in the manner they theorize and co-relate the imagined facts of history. The history of the human thought of the early period of man’s development is unrecorded, obscure and virtually non-existent. We are only entitled to call ‘history’ whatever we find as evidence from the relics of the past, indicating the lifestyle of that age. This history began as early as some two hundred or more thousand years in the past, while the actual history of religious development began hardly some thousands of years ago. Thus all they have to build their theories upon are suppositions. Their attempted projection into the minds of the ancients is no more than a fictional leap upon the wings of fancy. The orientation of this leap is prefixed in the direction of atheism. Their inferences are not corroborated by the evidence of human nature—the only reliable instrument for assessing thought processes.

Do we really worship what we fear? And does greed invariably make us inclined to fall prostrate to objects in an act of worship? Neither of these two factors can build even the most rudimentary religion. Fear simply makes one run away from the object of terror. One can imagine of course, such helpless miserable targets of torture who can not run away beseech their tormentors, begging them for mercy but not worshipping them. The same when released would abuse their erstwhile tormentors in the foulest terms and vilest language. The concept of worship would not even remotely cross his mind. We have yet to read a spy tale in which an MI5 agent is motivated by terror to begin to worship his KGB tormentor. The fear of God which we find mentioned in Divinely revealed religions has nothing to do with the idea of terror related to beasts and other fearsome objects. The threat of Divine punishment is merely used as a deterrent against crime, preventing people from transgression against themselves. In the primitive society of man, no promise of such punishment could be born merely out of their fear of the beasts of the jungle or the thunderstorms. No such fear or threat of punishment from the beasts of jungle or tempestuous forces of nature is ever known to have stayed the hand of ancient societies from committing aggression. Police officers, traffic wardens and magistrates are feared and hated, but never worshipped! In the most ancient times too, the fear of a vicious lion would make a savage run for his life rather than to fall prostrate before him, begging for mercy and extolling him for his grandeur and majesty. The bolts of lightning, torrents of rain, or the blazing radiation of hot summer sun could only motivate early man to run for shelter or devise protective measures. Can a sociologist really believe that during a severe thunder storm the ancient man instead of seeking cover would jump out of his cave to fall prostrate to the angry forces of nature in spate. The mention of sun-worship and star-worship does not in any way relate to a gradually developing idea of worship through fear or greed. There is no evidence whatsoever of a course of evolution leading man from worship of small earthly objects to a gradually developing form of worship related to more powerful and loftier imaginary beings.

The sociologists merely talk of evolution without adopting scientific methods to prove their hypothesis. When the scientists talk of evolution, they trace the entire course of stage by stage advancement of life, through a traceable trail extending back to a billion years. Is there an iota of proof that similar evolutionary processes did take place in relation to the development of the image of God? Which superstitious idolatrous societies ever evolved into monotheistic religions? None whatsoever.

Yet the sociologists would insist that it was the rudimentary faculty of perception in man which culminated in the creation of God. As mentioned before they doggedly persist in maintaining that the fear of the unknown did play its part in building godly images; darkness played its tricks, and the dangers lurking under the cover of ignorance began to command respect. The ancients began to worship the snake, the scorpion, the puma, the tiger and the lion. Earthquakes shook the earth, lightning rent the trees asunder and the storms raged wild and merciless, so the idea of God started to evolve. It evolved from the worship of natural phenomenon to the worship of material objects that struck terror in their hearts. It evolved from the worship of the inanimate to the worship of the animals, from the worship of scorpions and snakes to the worship of cats and other beasts of the jungle. Even monkeys were turned into gods. They could not reach the lofty cradles of lightning, and could not understand the nature of forces which created them, but they were terrified of them all the same.

They must have viewed every mighty phenomenon as an expression of the wrath of some god of terror sitting behind the curtains of clouds. So their rudimentary minds, simple as they were, began to weave the yam of superstitions. They invented teachings and rules of conduct to please despotic gods, or to escape their wrath at least. Temples were built, sacrifices were offered and the ideas of right and wrong began to take shape. A host of rituals and rites cropped up and finally scriptures were compiled. An over-inflated tribute, indeed, to their rudimentary primitive understanding! Or more aptly perhaps a tribute to the intellect of sociologists who built such lofty Divine castles in the air on behalf of the primitive men of rudimentary understanding.

They have failed to discern the marked differences between the pagan faiths and the Divinely revealed religions of the world. They have also failed to notice that the high priests, priestesses and oracles found among the ancient mythical cults never claimed to have received a new code of life based on revelation. Likewise, the validity of their claims to mediumship was never put to question, because their authority was traditionally handed down to them by their predecessors and was accepted as such by the society. They were never challenged to produce Divine signs in support of their claim, and felt free to concoct gimmicks in their support. Thus the credulous were further impressed by their supposed access to gods, which was no more than a ruse. The false gods were thus supported by false claimants.

The following points are worth noting about the above category of seers, which contrast with the case of the Divinely appointed founders of the world’s great religions. Their distinctive features can be summed up as follows:

1. The idolatrous priests are recognized within an already established temple.

2. They do not introduce a new religious doctrine which is controversial to the old established order and challenges its validity. Nor do they endeavour to change the values and conduct of the society. They always support beliefs and practices of the old system and never oppose the popular myths and superstitions.

3. Most often they are an accepted part of the prevailing political system and do not challenge the religious ideologies of the rulers. One may find, however, exceptional instances of rebellion by religious leaders against the monarchs of their time. In such cases it is necessitated by an urge for revenge against their excessive interference in their affairs. Sometimes it is motivated by their ambition to assume greater political control. Yet these are exceptions. The rule is that the corrupt idolatrous leadership most often serves the cause of a popular myth and philosophy firmly rooted in a strong power base.

How essentially different is the case of the Divinely appointed prophets, the upholders of the Unity of God who founded great religions of the world such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism etc. If we examine the lives of Moses(as), Jesus(as) or Muhammad(sa) and other similar prophets who claimed Divine origin, we shall invariably discover that none among them ever represented a well-established and popular religious order. Theirs was a lone voice of revolution. Invariably they based their claims on revelation and advocated a new philosophy demanding a completely different way of life. They preached values which were at odds with the prevailing customs and practices. They always emerged as harbingers of a new order and dared to challenge the prevailing religious authorities of the time. They appeared at a time when the dominant religions of the age had already split into sects and schisms, and fought among themselves for gaining greater domination over the ignorant masses. In such an age, as described, it was the emergence of a new Divine messenger which resulted in a state of forged unity among his opponents, who for the time being forgot their own differences and mustered their forces to put up a joint colossal resistance against the newly introduced Divine order. They presented a united front of opposition, exhibiting violent hostility. The Divine messenger on his part had no human support whatsoever. He was backed neither by the bulk of the common folk nor by any power group of the society. He was not championed by any political power. He was left alone, abandoned and rejected.

Such were the men who arose to confront the adulterous societies which always grow out of a wild proliferation of superstitious trends. The ushers of the new order always pleaded belief in the Unity of God and attempted to stamp out idolatry in every form, under every guise. Whatever unity their opponents could forge among themselves was only forged in opposition to the prophets, while within themselves they remained as deeply split as they ever were. If the upholders of the Unity of God were mere fabricators then theirs was an impossible task. No fabricators can ever persist in pursuance of such goals as lie visibly beyond their reach. The faith of such as these has to be deeply founded on the reality of God, or they must perish and be wiped out of existence. If there is no God then claimants like them should simply have been dismissed by society as raving mad. There is no third option. If not insane, how could they hold on to their beliefs so tenaciously as to sacrifice all they had for an unreal unfruitful cause. But they cannot be waived off as insane because the insane keep moving hither and tither in their ravings. As for the prophets, the society shows a violent reaction as though the ground under their feet had erupted. No human support by the rich or the poor, the powerful or the weak is ever known to have come to their aid against the united wrath of their violent opponents. The nobility of their message, the dignity of their conduct and their unshakeable faith in their final victory at the hour of utter desolation always stood witness to their truth.

Theirs was a case of extreme sacrifice, not of greed. Whatever they possessed, they lost in the cause of their noble goal. Not only they, but also those who continued to join them crossing all the hurdles, treading the same path of absolute sacrifice. Accusing fingers could not discourage people such as these.

The theory that ascribes the creation of imaginary gods to man’s ignorance, may be partially true in certain phases of human history of ignorance and immaturity. The exploitation of the ignorant masses by the priestly classes is not denied at all. But to suggest that this process generated a continuous evolutionary flow of ideas, leading eventually to the belief in One God, is what we categorically deny. The facts of history do not support the evolution of Unity from the growth of idolatrous superstition. It is a figment of the sociologists’ wayward fancy.

History does not produce any evidence to support the theory of progressive transformation of polytheism to monotheism. No transitional stages are witnessed in which communities moved from worshipping many gods to the worship of One. On the contrary, it is the sudden and abrupt appearance of one great man which sets into motion a train of events causing great upheavals and tribulations, requiring enormous sacrifices from those who chose to follow him.

The Holy Quran rejects this hypothesis. It categorically proclaims the opposite to be true. All the major religions of the world invariably began their journey with belief in Unity. The proposition of evolution can neither be proved with reference to history nor to the working of human psyche.

The character of prophets is like an open book which defies allegations of hidden intentions and secret designs. There is no phase in their earlier life before their claim to prophethood which could justify the accusation that they had planned to fake their prophetic claim at a later stage. No such evidence is at all found in the lives of the great advocates of God’s Unity, like Abraham(as), Moses(as) and Prophet Muhammad(sa).

By the time of Abraham(as), the lofty belief of Noah(as) in the Unity of God was already degenerated by his distant progeny into the earthly myths of many gods. Abraham(as) once again launched a gigantic struggle for the restoration of Unity. It prevailed at last, and the torch of Unity was held aloft by his progeny and others who followed him for many a generation to come.

The old fateful trend of decadence set in eventually with the same disastrous consequences. Within a few hundred years from the time of Abraham(as), the House of Israel reverted to the evil practice of idol worship. This continued until the time of Moses(as). Although Moses(as) was an outstanding champion of the cause of Unity among prophets, idolatry kept infiltrating and defiling the faith of his followers during the subsequent centuries. This again proves beyond a shadow of doubt that to move away from Unity is a downhill task. Left to himself, man would always slide down the ladder to the lowly ground of idolatry—a ground which breeds the vermin of superstition and polytheism.

Another example quoted by the Holy Quran is that of ‘Baitul Haram’ () in Mecca, the House of God built by Abraham(as), dedicated only to the cause of His Unity. But alas, it did not take the idols very long to re­ enter this illustrious House of God. Except for the name everything else was changed. It was ultimately occupied by no less than three hundred and sixty idols representing each day of the lunar year, filling its chambers from wall to wall. There was room for all of them, but no room for God.

Is this the evolutionary process the sociologists talk so much about? Is this the way they believe idolatry evolved into the idea of a single Supreme Being? Is this how the image of God is ultimately created by man as he advances from his primitive mental state to a more developed one? Nay, certainly not! The history of religions unanimously rejects this arbitrary sociologist conclusion. It clearly demonstrates that belief in the Unity of God always descends from Him. It never ascends to Him through a natural upward spiralling trend of progressive idol worship.

If a transition from many gods to one did ever occur, then the history of religion should have attested to it. But not a trace of it is found in the established history of world religions. Monotheistic societies do slowly degenerate into the polytheistic ones; the opposite never occurs.

It is extremely difficult for pious people to bequeath their piety to subsequent generations for a long time. Seldom does it happen that the righteousness of the forefathers runs deep and long into the following generations. A vast majority of the first generation, ushered into light, never returns to the previous state of darkness. Faith however, gradually weakens over successive generations. It does not happen overnight. It is a long slow process of decadence set in after the demise of a prophet which ultimately erodes the hard-earned belief in the Unity of God. Whenever belief dwindles, superstitions begin to encroach and take over. Firm faith in a single Omnipotent God splinters into fragments of a shattered image of Godhead. Oracles begin to be concocted from temple to temple and a dishonest religious clergy feels free to deceive the common masses.

Without exception, all religions emphasize the role of morality in human affairs. They may differ in other features, but not with regard to their stress on morality. It is a universal trend found everywhere in all ages. To accuse religion of siding with the rich and the powerful, may be justified to some extent only in the context of a decadent age. In the light of the early history of religion as it is unfolded with the advent of a prophet, this accusation is simply not entertainable. Morality as taught by the prophets, always works on the side of justice and fair play, waging a noble war against immorality and the exploitation of the weak and the destitute. It always strengthens the hands of the oppressed against the oppressor and those of the hunted against the hunter.

Where on earth did religious morality ever support the cause of the exploiter against the exploited? Search the entire early history of the dawn of religions and you will not find a single such example. It always legislated in favour of the weak and the poor. Genuine implementation of this legislation is guaranteed and impregnated by belief in an All-Knowing God. The believer can never escape His knowledge of whatever He does or intends to do. No man­ made law enjoys this advantage in relation to its implementation. It invariably fails to protect the system which they legislate, because of the absence of awareness in the mind of the criminal that he is being watched by the law-makers. Legislation alone, however much fortified with the threats of punishment, cannot stay the hand of the criminal. Its influence does not reach the breeding ground of crime—the hidden soil of secret intentions. The criminal always seeks shelter in his hope that like his intentions, his act of crime will also escape the eye of the law. To seek protection in the lap of falsehood is another major abettor of crime. Man’s propensity and impetuous tendency to commit crime is directly proportional to his hope of escaping detection. Hence, legislation alone can never succeed in uprooting social evils, because it lacks the vital prerequisite of reaching the dark abysses where crimes are nurtured. Most evils are perpetrated behind the smokescreen of imagined invisibility and unaccountability. However advanced the techniques of detection may become, they can never shake the confidence of the criminal in his calculated hope of escaping detection because he plans and plots safely hidden from the sight of law, couched in the secret chambers of his heart.

It is only a sound belief in the existence of God and accountability, which can frustrate and defeat all crimes in the offing. This and largely this, has been the purpose of moral legislation on the part of religion. Morality, in fact, is virtually essential for the survival of religion itself. When moral standards are lowered, religion is the first to suffer. Dishonesty and immorality corrode even the most powerful man-made edifices of law and constitution. The spiritual edifices of religion are likewise corroded and turned to dust by the dry rot of immorality. Like termites, it razes to the ground the lofty moral structures of great religions.

This is the key to the understanding of decadence at all levels of religious beliefs and practices. The Unity of God is split and continues to be splintered because of the lowering standards of morality. Idolatry begins to replace the Unity of God, and idols occupy the houses of God turning them into temples. Deep below such destructive phenomenon, one will always find the worms of dishonesty at work. Dishonesty becomes a deadly poison when it works at the level of leadership, but no deadlier poison can be conceived than dishonesty when it works at the level of religious leadership. In the name of God, they play havoc with the peace of His creation. God ceases to play any substantial role in the affairs of men. His emptied throne is occupied by the pseudo-gods of religious hierarchy.

It would be much wiser therefore, to judge religions at their nascent stage rather than later, when through human interpolation they become mere ruins of their noble beginning. Their beginning is noble but also humble. The attitude of the society towards religions when they are found in their pristine purity is that of extreme hostility and rejection. The noblest living example of religious teachings are the prophets themselves. It is they who are rejected and ridiculed and made the target of merciless hostility.

The same goes for the early believers whose integrity, dedication and willing sacrifice in the cause of truth finds no parallel in the later period. How ironical it is that noble men such as these are not acceptable to a society as long as they live. After they have departed the arena of life on earth, they are revered, even beyond the status they actually occupied. They are raised to the status of godlike figures; even their graves are worshipped. This strange inconsistency in the attitude of the society gradually grows among those who inherit their faith without paying the price of sacrifice. They corrode the noble values of religion surreptitiously and work beneath the surface like worms. Unity of God always works in two planes. All advocates of His Unity are inseparably bound to Him, as well as among themselves, together. Again, on the other plane, Unity exists between the Creator and His creation.

In the established history of prophethood, no prophet is ever found to reject and malign the prophets before him. The same attitude of oneness is extended into the future. Of course warnings are issued against ‘false prophets’ who are clearly recognizable, by their ungodly character, but the advent of genuine Divine messengers is always mentioned with love and respect. This applies invariably to all upholders of Unity belonging to all ages. Unity of God forges them into one brotherhood. Corrupt religious patriarchs do not possess this distinctive feature. They preach division while beating the drum of Unity. The love of Unity binds His prophets so powerfully together that to offend one is tantamount to offending the other. It becomes the strongest symbol of Unification between God and His chosen servants on the one hand, and between the chosen servants, mutually, on the other.

Unity also manifests itself as a universal link between Him and every other form of existence. The Unity of the Creator unites Him with His creation, unifying them in apparent or subtle ways. Alas, that in relation to both these integrals of Unity, disintegration begins to take place with the passage of time. This eventually prepares the soil upon which the Tree of Evil thrives.

The first signs of disruption appear when the arrogant priesthood of later periods begins to raise the status of their human prophets beyond the inviolable line of Unity, assigning to them some of the exclusive Divine attributes, which they never, ever, claimed for themselves. An over­ exaggerated love of the past prophets becomes the new faith of this degenerate religious society. Hyperbolical eulogies are showered upon them, new human gods are in the making, new mortals are immortalised. Little do they realize that they and the entire society which follows them must pay heavily for this blatant inconsistency. Blind love of past prophets becomes the soul and spirit of their religion but only after the soul and spirit of the prophet’s message is completely destroyed and shattered by this new class of their pseudo-devotees. Prophets always come to destroy sin but their love is exploited to promote it. This, they trust, would absolve them of whatever sins they may have committed. The same love of a dead prophet will enliven them to a life worse than death. They feel safe with God, whose Unity they offend, as long as they continue to bow their heads to the godliness of His human partners. This opens such floodgates of moral corruption which once opened can never be shut again by human efforts. Sin is invariably emboldened by the love of sinless prophets.

The same decadent clergy shamelessly advocate hatred, bloodshed, terrorism and destruction of fundamental human rights in the name of their love of God. They create a chasm between God and humans thus securing for themselves a position of command in His absence. From them on, it is they who issue decrees without receiving them from on high. They virtually capture godhead without admitting it in so many words. To them God matters not; what matters is they themselves. It is their wrath which society must fear; from then on, it is their pleasure they must always seek. This becomes the new criterion for punishment and reward. Whoever dares to disagree with the pseudo-gods is condemned to hell, whoever agrees is rewarded with eternal paradise. God must dispose what they propose. About the morals of the common people they care not. All they care for is their own ego and the authority with which they command the masses. Courtesy, culture, a sense of justice and fair play are all mercilessly slaughtered at the altar of their rigid dogmas. This is the price the societies must always pay whenever they violate the Unity of God in one sense or another.

Like an injured serpent, they begin to raise their vengeful head against Divine interference. Their virtual worship of past prophets is a ruse of course; their real intention hidden behind this façade has always been the worship of their own egos. But the dilemma is that such a Godless society abounds in pseudo-gods like them. There can be no unity without the Unity of God. Petty rivalries among the priestly class begin to take their toll. They divide and split into new sects and schisms holding the banners of ideological differences.

An atrocious struggle for gaining ascendancy over the masses ensues. All they really care for is the number of their flock. As for the morals of the people they lead, they could not care less. They exercise no positive influence over their daily life and moral responsibilities to the society. They only know how to excite their emotions to a state of frenzy in generating hatred against the rival sects but they never till and turn the soil of their hearts to sow the seeds of love and sacrifice. A society such as this offers an ideal ground for idolatry to take root therein. Unconditional submission to their authority in matters of faith and doctrine is all they demand. The submission to the will of God with regard to the life they lead is of no consequence. They may rob or steal, they may maim or kill, they may hoard wealth or build castles with lies, deception, cheating and fraud. They may do whatever they will, as long as they do not change their loyalties to their own priests and do not prostrate to their rivals; everything else about them is just fine and acceptable. The centre of their worship shifts from God to prophets, from prophets to their own wretched egos. Thus the corrupt mortals emerge in their new role of demigods.

The case of the ignorant masses who follow them is no less pitiable. All they know on earth is that God is priest and priest is God. They are incapable of challenging his authority in the matter of faith. A diametrical change in the orientation of submission takes place. It becomes impossible for them to know the difference. The will of the priest, to them, becomes the will of God. It remains so only as long as the priest does not cross the path of their self­ interest. The moment he ventures to do so he loses his authority over them and is no longer treated as an object worthy of submission. In the domain of his personal interests, no member of an immoral society such as this knows any God other than himself. Homage is paid to the pseudo-gods of priests only as long as they do not clash with the egos of those they lead. Thus the journey from monotheism to polytheism turns a full circle. Ego worship is the only logical destination of a religious society in decadence.

In all promiscuous societies, as mentioned above, the sudden appearance of a Divine Warner, is always treated as a most annoying interference. Such exactly was the treatment meted out to Jesus(as) when he appeared among the sheep of the House of Israel. But in their attitude to him, they should be referred to as wolves rather than sheep. However, his attitude to them was like that of a loving shepherd who cares for each sheep of his flock.

One can easily visualize how deceptively their passage is eternally blocked. The virtual idolization of prophets works as the most formidable stumbling block in the path of later prophets who must always appear as humans. Even without idolization, the hyperbolical praises showered upon them and attributions to them of supernatural powers should be sufficient cause for the rejection of all genuine prophets who will never come in this grand style. Hence, a crisis of identity will always block their passage.

Without prophets, faith in God is but another name for atheism. Their daily pattern of behaviour and conduct of life reflects everything but God. He seems to have abandoned them, like a nest from which the bird has flown away forever, never to return.

Such also were the challenges confronted by Jesus Christ(as). The Jewish society of his time was passing through a similar spiritual and moral crisis. The rabbis and the Pharisees and the Sadducees had all become pseudo-gods and no room was left for accommodating the Divine. It is no small wonder, therefore, that the lone, humble voice of Jesus(as) raised in the name of God, was not drowned in the tumultuous uproar of the hostile protests.

This, in short, is the tale of the origin, rise and fall of religions. But a new beginning is always made after every fall to rehabilitate the Unity of God yet again. It always originates in Heaven, and descends with revelation. It never erupts from the earth below, rising heavenwards like curly columns of smoke of human confusion ultimately resolving into a belief in Unity. Instead the Unity of God only descends from on high to raise the fallen man yet again to the celestial heights of nearness to Him.

The Concept of God Among the Aborigines of Australia

So far we have attempted to disprove the currently popular theories of Western sociologists, who by a strange logic of their own, have tried to prove that the idea of God is a creation of man rather than man being His creation. Their so-called evidence in support of their theory is nothing but mere conjecture. How far the study of the evolution of mind over a billion years of biotic evolution would support this bizarre hypothesis is a subject of inquiry in itself and requires an in-depth study. On the other hand, an unbiased study of the history of religions reveals that belief in God is not a product of human superstition. Was it God Who created man, or was it man who created God, is the vital question we have already discussed with reference to the history of some major monotheistic religions.

Now, we propose to critically examine the sociologists’ concept of a gradual evolution of the idea of God, with reference to the Aborigine religions of Australia. This study will further demonstrate the inherent flaw in the sociologists’ manner of enquiry. Their enquiry invariably begins with the preconception that there is no God. No fair­ minded person can adjudge such an enquiry as scientific, where the verdict is already passed before the enquiry has begun. It is this inherent contradiction which becomes manifestly exposed when the sociologists come face to face with the irrefutable reality of Australian evidence. Before constituting any enquiry, its principles have to be clearly laid down. But no such attempt has ever been made by the sociologists to define them and the purpose of the enquiry. The only principle they know is their conviction that there is no God. The purpose of their enquiry is simply to investigate why people worship God or godly images while they do not exist. Hence the growth of superstitions culminating in the creation of gods is the only subject of their enquiry.

Having said that, let us now draw the attention of the reader to the history of religion in Australia. It is a continent whose culture, social and religious history can be traced back to at least twenty-five thousand years. Many scholars extend it to forty thousand years or beyond. According to some researchers, however, this period could extend even to a past as remote as one hundred and thirty thousand years of unbroken, unadulterated and undisturbed growth of religion.

The Australian continent is not only unique in having been completely broken off from the rest of the world, it is also unique in containing within it hundreds of social islands, each comprising tribes that remained entirely isolated from each other. It is known that between five hundred to six hundred such tribal units had their own independent history of social and religious development, throughout an age of twenty-five to forty thousand years, in complete isolation from each other except for occasional marginal contacts at the boundaries of their territories.

Such contacts were not only brief, but also ineffectual in transferring their ideologies, beliefs, myths and superstitions to each other. It was not only the language barriers which stood in the way, but also their traditional aversion to socialize and communicate with outsiders, which had created an impassable barrier in the way of transfer of information from one to the other.

If the sociologist’s view which begins with the negation of God has any substance in it, then in each of the Aboriginal tribes we should have discovered the same universal trend of worshipping objects of nature gradually evolving into belief in one Supreme God. What we discover, however, to the utter chagrin of the sociologist is a completely different story.

In all the tribes of Australia, without exception, there exists a belief in one Supreme Power, who is the first cause of all creation. Their descriptions differ on minor points and their terminology varies slightly, but according to the consensus of the sociologists and anthropologists, they all invariably believe in the existence of that ultimate first cause called ‘High Gods’—another name for Allah, God, Brahma and Parmatama etc.

The central idea of one eternal Supreme Creator remains unadulterated by whatever other superstitions they may have entertained. The superstitions change from tribe to tribe, but not their belief in one God. Nowhere in Australia could the sociologists find any evidence of a gradual evolution of the idea of God. The views prevailing among the different tribes differ only in description. The Wiimbaio tribe, for instance, believed that while engaged in the process of the creation of earth, God remained close at hand but having finished His work He ascended back to the loftiness of the constellations. Similarly, the Wotjobaluk tribe believed Bunjil to be a Supreme Being, who once lived on the earth as a great man but eventually ascended to the sky.1

The sociologists, when referring to these beliefs, very often forget to inform the reader that these and all the other five hundred or more tribes, did believe in the eternity of the Creator; whether He took human form or not is only incidental and not central to the issue. Again, what is central to their belief is the fact that the earth and whatever it contained did not eternally coexist with the Supreme Creator.

Many anthropologists dispute the origin and purpose of the concept of God amongst the Aborigines. They doubt that the Australian High Gods2, is the same as the Supreme Being known elsewhere among traditional religions, because it is difficult for them to believe that savages or inferior people, as the primitive Australians were, could hold such advanced conceptions.

The utter absurdity of their position is self-evident. Because they could not believe something to have happened, so it could not have happened, is the crux of their argument. This further exposes their prejudicial attitude. If a society as primitive as the Aborigines of Australia is found to have believed in one God, right from the beginning of their history, then there is nothing left for sociologists but to admit ideas of God did not evolve from primitive superstitious myths. Instead all we have from them is a childish sulky response: we cannot believe because it could not have happened.

In an attempt to avoid this embarrassment, E.B. Tylor has discovered another evasive excuse to discredit the Australian evidence. In his article Limits of Savage Religion in the Journal of Anthropological Institute (1891), he proposes the novel idea that High Gods is the product of influences from the Christian missionaries on Australian religion. An absurd proposition, as it is, it is completely belied by the facts of history.

A.W. Howitt, another evolutionist, roundly disproves Tylor’s claim pointing out that in some tribes in the South-East of Australia, the belief in One Eternal God certainly preceded the arrival of any missionaries or indeed any Western settlers, among them. Strangely, even he fails to notice that the bizarre idea of Christian missionaries sowing the suggestion of the Unity of God should have been dismissed outright because no trace of Trinity is found anywhere in the entire continent of Australia in the image of God which the Aborigines universally revere.

Nevertheless, despite the range and extent of Howitt’s empirical studies, Howitt himself seems reluctant to push his own research to its logical conclusion. While he can readily admit in his book, published in 1904, that the Aborigines believed in an All-Father who was:

‘ … evidently everlasting, for he existed from the beginning of all things, and he still lives. But in being so, he is merely in that state in which, these Aborigines believe, everyone would be if not prematurely killed by magic.’3

Thus Howitt attempts to escape the inescapable evidence of Divinity in their belief by confusing the issue. He claims:

‘It cannot be alleged that these Aborigines have consciously any form of religion.’4

Here is another example of a desperate attempt on the part of the evolutionists to escape the inevitable. The points Howitt has raised are not only inconclusive but are also irrelevant to the subject of discussion. The simple question which any sociologist must have addressed was: how could a primitive society, like that of the Aborigines, which was split into hundreds of sub-tribes with no means of communication among them, conceive the same idea of One Supreme Eternal Being independently? Again, they should have answered the question as to what legitimacy is left, in view of this, to their theories of an evolutionary development of the idea of God.

As for Howitt, even if we accept his tall claim that all Aborigines believed that if they were not killed by magic they could have evolved into something like the Creator Himself, it offers no haven of escape to him. In no way does it support the sociologists’ myth of evolution of the idea of God. One is amazed how a scholar of Howitt’s reputation could confuse the two distinctly separate issues. The theory of ultimate evolution of belief in one God, from the primitive superstitious beliefs in many gods, has nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothetical discussion of the possible evolution of men into gods, had death not terminated their span of life. At best this Aboriginal view could be likened unto a similar discussion in the Old Testament in relation to the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent. God, according to the serpent, had denied Adam and Eve access to the fruit of the forbidden tree, lest they should become like the Creator Himself, sharing eternity with Him. This similarity between the primitive Aborigines’ view with the Judeo-Christian beliefs brings their faith even closer to the comity of traditional religions. One really wonders how Howitt could fail to register this evident similarity.

Obviously, it is the Aborigine way to draw a clear-cut line between the Creator and the created. The message delivered is simply this: the Creator is not only Eternal in relation to the past, He is also Everlasting in relation to the future. He is the only One who possesses these attributes. No man can ever achieve eternity in relation to the future because every man is mortal. This brings them in line with all the Unitarian religions which share the same belief that God alone is Eternal and Everlasting.

In his enthusiasm to discredit the Aborigines of having any religion at all, he further argues that there are no signs of worship or sacrifice among them. This observation of Howitt has no relevance to the contention under review. Whether he calls their faith a religion or not, when he admits that they did believe in the existence of a Supreme Eternal Creator, he succeeds only in discrediting the sociologists’ theory of gradual evolution of the idea of God. As for the validity of his claim that there is no evidence of the Aborigines offering worship or sacrifice in any form to the High Gods in whom they believed, it cannot be accepted at its face value. It should be noted here that some of their religious practices have been completely misunderstood by most Western scholars. What they refer to as the habit of dreaming by the Aborigines, is not what the Aborigines themselves believe them to be.

The author has had the opportunity of meeting one of heir knowledgeable leaders to verify from them the real significance of their dreams. It is important because one finds dreams mentioned in almost all Western literature written on Aborigines. It took some effort on the part of the author to ultimately persuade that leader to discuss matters of faith, which he was obviously reluctant to share with a non-Aborigine. This reluctance, it transpired, was largely due to the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their beliefs by many a foreigner who had probed into this area of Aborigine life and history. This is what the author gathered from his conversation with him after a favourable rapport was established.

Dreams to them are merely a means of communication from God. Through dreams they are foretold of many important events in their lives. They have a system of religious hierarchy, comprising leaders who are well versed in the science of interpretation of dreams. Such leaders have no outside contact and access to them by the non-Aborigine is barred. When the dreams are presented to them, the dreamer himself has often no idea as to the message they carry. The interpreter however can read the underlying message and, most often than not, he is proved right. It is the subsequent events which testify to his truth as well as to the validity of the institution of dreams.

Thus, a clear line has to be drawn between their religious beliefs and practices on the one hand and their rituals and superstitions on the other, which are of no real significance anyway. Superstitions and superstitious practices vary from tribe to tribe and there is no common heritage found among all the Aborigines. The issue of dreams is radically different. Like their belief in one God, their reliance on dreams as a means of Divine instruction is shared by all invariably. The dreams very often follow their contemplation on matters of grave importance. Hence, it is not unlikely that this contemplation is just another name for prayers. It has to be so because their contemplation, unlike that among the Buddhists, results in such dreams as are answers to them. In relation to their dreams the Aborigines also have a strong and well-defined discipline, the breach of which is punishable.

To dub them as a religionless people therefore is far from justified. As far as their belief concerning death ‘caused by magic’ is concerned, in this context, it does not have the same meaning as understood elsewhere in the world. There are no theatrical magicians among the Aborigines, like those who operate elsewhere in the world. They certainly do not believe that every death which occurs among them, occurs because of a spell cast by an evil person through magical chanting. In this case magic is far more likely to refer to satanic influences, which symbolize darkness as against light in the spiritual sense. For magic to mean sin in Aborigine terminology is so apparent that it is hard to understand how the anthropologists and sociologists fail to recognize it. Death is considered to be the result of magic which works in the case of every mortal without exception. Only ‘High Gods’ is an exception to this rule. None else shares eternity with Him. By no means does it signify that death is caused in every case only by the acts of some magicians casting their spell on the living. Death is a universal phenomenon applicable to all living forms alike, everywhere in the world, Australia being no exception. Aborigines knew it well and however naive one may consider them to be, it is impossible to attribute to them the utter stupidity of considering every death to be the outcome of sorcery.

In view of this, the significance of magic can only be understood in two possible ways. First it may refer to sin as the ultimate cause of all spiritual death, as understood in other Divine religions elsewhere in the world. If this is the case, then they must have received the idea from the same source that enlightened the People of the Book to the existence of an Eternal God.

Alternatively, a second simpler meaning of magic which could reasonably be attributed to them would be that whatever they found to be inexplicable, for which they had no answer, was relegated to the realm of magic, meaning simply a mystery. Hence, the universality and inevitability of death, which marks the demarcation line between the finite and infinite, the Creator and the created, is a mystery spoken of as ‘magic’ by Aborigines. However, the term magic is not confined to this connotation alone. Whatever else they found to be inexplicable in their day-to-day experience was also referred to as magic.

Again, the eternal conflict between light and darkness, as depicted in somewhat material terms in the Zoroastrian religion, could as well be the underlying philosophy in the so-called superstitious practices of the Aborigine. Their well-established practice of trying to shun the shadow of a moving object may have the same significance as darkness representing sin or Satan.

But the dreams and whatever they understand by them, have nothing to do with their superstitions; they are two unrelated phenomena. The dreams are a part of the central core of their belief in God and the means of receiving communication from Him. According to them, from time immemorial, they have been witnessing the signs of an All-Knowing Supreme Being who takes a live interest in the affairs of what He creates. Thus the Aborigines have a genuine cause of complaint against the Western researchers who dismiss their religious experience as unworthy of being called religious because they deem them too primitive and ignorant. Their efforts to distort the image of the Aboriginal faith must have stemmed from the fear lest this recognition should discredit their own previously held theories.

One Aborigine who particularly impressed the author was a highly educated gentleman who had converted to Christianity, or so it seemed, before his access to higher education. By profession he was an engineer. In the beginning of the dialogue, he was evidently reluctant to share his knowledge of the religious beliefs and practices of the Aborigine. Surprisingly, despite his conversion to Christianity, he still remained Aborigine deep at heart. After a long persuasive effort on the part of the author when he became convinced of his sincerity and genuine concern for the cause of the Aborigine, he gradually began to thaw. The sorrow in his eyes was as deep and profound as the ancient history of Aborigine civilization. He told the author that it was seldom that outsiders could actually gain access to the elite hierarchy of the Aborigines. The knowledge they have acquired is mostly peripheral. He showed particular disgust at the manner the Aborigines’ experience of dreams was treated and portrayed by the Western researchers.

Innumerable boundaries between Australian tribes separated them into complete isolation from each other. The languages differed and inter­ communication in any form was strictly avoided. Yet in each tribe the concept of One God remained common.

A tradition of the Holy Prophet(sa), is worthy of note here because it speaks of Divine dreams to be one-fortieth part of prophethood.5 Though this profound observation indicates that universally it is true dreams with which prophethood begins, they ultimately pave the path for verbal revelation from God, which may, when He so pleases, commission the recipient to be His Messenger.

Returning to the subject of the conclusion drawn by the Western researchers, one must admit that all are not alike in their negative attitude to the spiritual experiences of the Aborigines. Among them are scholars who possessed the clear vision and boldness to admit that Aborigines did have a well-defined faith in a Single Supreme God. Andrew Lang in The Making of Religion6, argued that ‘High Gods’ was an authentic Aborigine idea, and because there were very few myths around the ‘All-Fathers’, Lang justifiably concluded that the myths were born after the idea of the ‘High Gods’.

Peter Wilhelm Schmidt, a German Roman Catholic priest, in his twelve volume Ursprung der Gottesidee, written between 1912 and 1925, also supported Lang and asserted that myth came after the idea of ‘High Gods’. Schmidt’s work was first published in French between 1908 and 1910 in Anthropos, a new journal founded by Schmidt himself. A reprint was circulated separately under the heading, L’origine de Dieu. Etude Historico-Critique et Positive. Premiere Partie. Historico Critique (Vienna 1910), a second enlarged German edition appeared in 1926. Here, Schmidt explained the coexistsence of myth and religion in the concept of the High Gods, by arguing that the original idea of High Gods had become mixed up with the later growth of superstitious gibberish.

However, there are some anthropologists who continue to insist that the idea of High Gods was the product of myths. Among them is the leading figure of Raffaele Pettazzoni in Dio, (1922) but it is surprising to note that his argument is not at all supported by the evidence consistently found in all the main Aboriginal tribes. For him to extend his conclusions drawn from the mythical traditions of only one particular tribe to all the Aborigines of Australia is neither honest nor logical.7

Most Aboriginal tribes do not share the same myths as mentioned by him. As for their belief in God, they all subscribe to the idea of One Supreme, Conscious, Eternal Cause of creation. Moreover, despite the great name of Pettazzoni as an anthropologist, his insistence that the coexistsence of myths and the idea of One Supreme Creator must mean that the superstitions preceded the more highly developed idea of God—is unentertainable without the least evidence to support it. He has not even attempted to connect the development of their myths to the idea of a Supreme God through an evolutionary process.

The theory of the evolutionary growth of the idea of God from myths and superstitions is simply not relevant to the Australian evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever of nature worship under the influence of awe and wonder. No such step by step worship practices can be traced in the Aboriginal religious practices, ultimately leading to the more advanced belief in God. One has to agree therefore with Andrew Lang that the myth definitely followed and did not precede the idea of One God.

The myths among Aborigines are scattered unrelated pieces of superstitions which can be justifiably related to the simple wanderings of the mind of a primitive unlettered people to discover some meaning in what they observed. This attempt on their part is no different from the universal human trend.

Man has always been wondering about the nature of the heavens, the sun, the moon and the constellations. Many a time this wonderment has resulted in the creation of myths. Among the idolatrous people, their imaginary gods are ultimately dressed in the robes of myths. This, however, is not the case with the Aborigines. Their myths are neither related to the idea of worship, nor are they built around the figures of gods, as we find elsewhere. According to them the idea of God is separate and independent, the images of other forms of existence occupying the heavenly bodies and constellations are not gods. Hence it is made more difficult to agree with Pettazzoni when he argues that the High Gods is a product of mythological imagination.

The problem with the rationalist anthropologists and sociologists is basically the same as shared by all other secular scholars. If they accept the Australian evidence, they would ultimately have to admit that the idea of a Supreme Eternal Creator had not evolved, hence it must have descended in its perfected form from God Himself. Otherwise it could not be possible for the most primitive simple-minded dweller of Australia to conceive that idea with such unanimity without any inter-communication. Hence the denial of this evidence by some sociologists and anthropologists, merely because it does not agree with their concept of things, is no compliment to their scholarly image and their integrity. It is a relief however to learn that among them there are many happy exceptions. There are certainly some who exhibit enough maturity and honesty of purpose to accept the evidence as fact. Yet they too continue to explore some avenues of escape to hide behind the mist of obscure, shady explanations.

Such is the case of F. Graebner. While accepting that the ‘great god’ was certainly a Creator for the Aborigines and a

‘ … first cause of, at least, everything which is important for men … ,’

he goes on to argue:

‘But Preuss is perhaps right in doubting that so abstract an idea as the first cause could have been capable, among primitive men, of producing a figure which is always so full of life.’8

Like Howitt, Graebner is reluctant to commit himself to the view that the Aborigines could have perceived the attributes of a Supreme Being all by themselves, yet he lacks the moral strength to draw the inevitable conclusion. A prefixed atheistic bias is evident.

In some tribes of Australia, the idea of one High Gods is found intermixed with some mythical figures around him such as wives, children etc. This does not cast any doubt on our claim that the image of High Gods of the Aborigines is no different from that of God elsewhere in the conventional monotheistic religions. The scholars who discovered the prevalence of such myths have highlighted some of their distinctive features, which help the reader to draw a clear line of demarcation between them and God, with whom they are claimed to be related. It is a mistake to ascribe the same meaning to the so-called Aboriginal myths as normally related to the word ‘myth’ elsewhere in the world. Elsewhere, the myths are always created around the figures of gods in idolatrous religions, while among the Aborigines no such ‘gods’ are either worshipped or revered. Whatever myths the sociologists may refer to were certainly not created around the figure of their High Gods. For only a few tribes to entertain such myths is in itself a proof that their existence is not indicative of a universal belief among the Aboriginal tribes. No creative power is ever attributed to them nor are they believed to share eternity with Him. They are all creations none of which has ever created anything. They have to be created themselves because they are not eternal. It is likely that these myths were conceived haphazardly by some religious elders of later ages.

Speaking of the same, Eliade, while paraphrasing T.G.H Strehlow, takes up the case of another tribe of the Western Aranda and shows that according to them:

‘ … the earth and the sky had always existed and had always been the home of Supernatural Beings. The western Aranda believe that the sky is inhabited by an emu-footed Great Father (Knaritja), who is also the Eternal Youth (altjira nditja). He has dog-footed wives and many sons and daughters. “They lived on fruits and vegetable foods in an eternally green land, unaffected by droughts, through which the Milky Way flowed like a broad river … ”.’9

They have an Eden-like place where only trees, fruits and flowers flourish. All these sky-dwellers are seen as ageless and beyond death.

Despite the fact that these sky-beings display two essential characteristics of supremacy, that of immortality and chronological precedence (i.e. they came before the totemic heroes), Strehlow rightly refuses to acknowledge their significance in the development of Australian religion. He cannot accept these sky-beings as supreme because they did not shape or create life themselves.10

Strehlow’s argument is irrefutable because the mythical forms referred to are described as immortal but not eternal in their relation to the past, while the High Gods, is both eternal and immortal. Moreover, no power of creation whatsoever is attributed to these mythical figures, hence they cannot be perceived as sharing Divinity with High Gods, the only Creator. Again it is quite likely that this belief may have been wrongly categorized as mythical. It may well have been a slightly changed version of the paradise concept common to all major Divinely revealed religions. The description of the Supreme Dweller of paradise being emu-footed and that of His wife and children as dog-footed are the only foreign elements to the concept of paradise found elsewhere, otherwise the same Eden-like gardens, eternally green, abounding in fruits and vegetables, with no fear of drought etc., are very close to metaphoric description of paradise presented by the Holy Quran.

The complete absence of animals other than the ‘Children of God’ is also significant. The concept of paradise in other major religions is likewise empty of animal life. The dwellers are only the pious people who are also described metaphorically as ‘Children of God’. Had it been a myth created by the simple minds of Aborigines, it is unlikely that they should have altogether excluded the animals from their vision of paradise. In other areas of the world we often find mythical concepts involving the presence of some animals. Yet, in the image of paradise common to the major religions, animals are conspicuous by their absence.

The history of evolution of society and religious ideas is not shaped by any single factor. It is far too intermixed and the mutual flow of ideas from one region to the other is so frequent that it becomes difficult to disentangle one from the other and determine the direction of influence with any certainty. To trace a single thread of thought process from beginning to end in a sequential order is indeed an extremely challenging task.

The debate as to who influenced whom goes unabated. Was it Buddhism, for instance which mothered Christian ideology or was it Christianity which influenced Buddhism, is one of the many unresolved questions. But what we find in Australia is a completely different story of a unique singularity. If evidence of the Australian religious experience had supported the sociologists’ view, one wonders what their attitude would have been. Would they not have raised a storm and shouted ‘eureka’ at the top of their voice in exultation and pride! But with the hard realities of the unadulterated religious history of the Aborigines staring them in the eye, it is deplorable to watch how desperately they still struggle to escape the inevitable. We particularly speak of such naturalists as are in a state of shock because they had no faith in God the Creator. As such they were absolutely certain that the history of the Aborigines would support their convictions and testify to their theories that the idea of God had gradually evolved over thousands of years. But what they have discovered is so different and exasperating. Why exasperating, one may ask, when they are just in search of truth? Why be so profoundly disappointed at the truth being at variance with their own previously held views? It is so because the rejection of any argument which may lead to God is with them predetermined. Any discoveries contrary to this must either be discarded or misinterpreted. Secularism to them is synonymous with the negation of God. Whatever excuses they offer, however, to save the face of their ‘secular’ theories, serve only to expose their unscientific attitude further. Prejudice is no prerogative, it seems of the religious clergy alone. Non religious thinkers and philosophers can also have their fill of it whenever it suits their purpose. A draught full of this hemlock invariably drowns their faculty of logic and sense, justice and fair play. Under this influence they behave more like dogmatic religious zealots, than as secular thinkers, as they purport themselves to be.

But whatever argument they muster in support of their erstwhile view can in no way ressurrect it from the ruin it has already met. All their high-flown theories of a God progressively created by human imagination came to a disastrous crash on the Australian continent. They are in utter dismay and disarray confounded by the fall. To put them together again can be done neither by kings nor clowns. Their case is reminiscent of Milton’s Paradise Lost. Only, no reason or logic will ever help them salvage the wreckage and regain what they have forever lost. Little could Milton imagine that his drama would one day be played in real life, with men for actors. Their paradise lost would not be ‘God Himself, but a god of their own creation. What do we care if they lose him forever, and what do they care if God cares for them naught!