Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 220

THE ROOT OF RELIGION : INTUTION AND REASONING
209
I now propose to examine the thesis that religion owes its inception to the deliberate fraud of a class of intellectuals who a dopted the priestly profession as a source of livelihood. But these priests are themselves believers in efficacy of religion and the religious practices. They also practise these ceremonies with all these paraphernalia. They invoke the services of other priests and make a gift of the offerings to them. It may be argued that these people are the victims of past impostors. But the question arises with regard to these alleged professional cheats. They also were sincere believers.' It may be contended that the series of impostors in generation after generation are responsible for the emergence of an institutional religion. The so-called prophets are also victims of pious fraud. But we cannot light upon any historical individual who may have been the first impostor. If the whole series of religious persons are supposed to have been the victims of deception, the theory of deception will not hold water. If religion were outcome of fraud and deception on the part of a person or a community it must have been discovered long ago and the culprits brought to book. But religion is not an institution of a particular age, a country or a nation but is found to be present wherever men live, as modern anthropologists have shown. So the hyothesis of fraud cannot be seriously entertained. If, on the other hand, it is supposed to owe its origin to error or false belief, it ought to have been corrected by discovery of the opposite truth just as all errors are found to be cancelled by the opposite finding. Even if it is supposed to be based on a mistaken notion and a pipedream, the mistake must be enormously powerful to hold all the diverse races of mankind from time emmemorial under its sway. So neither the hypothesis of deception nor error will be acceptable as a satisfactory explanation of the origin of religion. It must again be recognized that in spite of the preachings of the prophets of scepticism, religion continues to be a powerful force with mankind in general. This faith in religion is not confined to ignorant uneducated people but has adherence among the best intellects of every generation. The great prophets and apostles of religion, to name a few, Sriksşņa, Buddha, the Jain Tirthaakaras, Jesus Christ, cannot be dubbed as men of weak intellect. Even the greatest men of science in modern age Newton, Einstein, Eddington and others were believers in God. The line of defence may however be regarded as an argumentum ad hominem. But this is mentioned by us as a matter worthy of serious consideration by the materialist philosopher and we expect an explanation from him.
1. See Nyāyakusumāñjali, Chap. I.
14