Devika Majumder: Hi, Bhargava. Welcome to Global Influencers Hub. Here, we explore the journeys of inspiring individuals, and we can’t wait to dive into yours. To start, tell us about your childhood—what was young Bhargava like?

Bhargava Joshi: Thank you, Devika! As a child, I was very hyperactive. I trained in Taekwondo, but my real interest was always in astronomy. I used to participate in stargazing workshops in school, and I was completely into science. You could say I was a total science nerd!

Devika: That’s amazing! So, how did that childhood passion shape your academic journey?

Bhargava: After my undergraduate studies, I started preparing for the UPSC exams, and that’s where I was introduced to religious studies and history. Eventually, I moved to the U.S. to pursue a PhD in mechanical and aerospace engineering. While working on my PhD, I also started taking courses in the philosophy and religious studies department and even began teaching there. My research focuses on droplet combustion and evaporation in aerospace engineering, but my interests extend beyond just science.

Devika: Fascinating! Your passion seems to have been deeply ingrained since childhood. What was the driving force behind it?

Bhargava: Since childhood, I’ve always dreamed of becoming an astronaut—and I still do. I believe I’m on the right path, as I’m close to completing my PhD in aerospace engineering. My motivation started in school, where I was part of the aeronautics and stargazing clubs. Later, I volunteered for five years as a science communicator at India’s oldest association of amateur astronomers, JotirVidyaParisanstha, which was founded in 1948. Through that experience, I conducted astronomy sessions and introduced people to the wonders of the night sky. That deepened my passion for science and space.

Devika: That’s incredible! And alongside your work in aerospace, you’ve also ventured into religious studies. How did that come about?

Bhargava: Initially, religious studies were just an academic interest. But when I moved to the U.S., I had the opportunity to become a teaching assistant in the department of philosophy and religious studies. I applied, went through an interview process, and secured the role. Since then, I’ve been a TA for various courses, including Survey of Religion, Sacrifice, and Buddhism.

Devika: That’s quite an interesting combination! What’s it like being a teaching assistant in religious studies?

Bhargava: As a TA, my responsibilities include conducting discussion sessions, grading assignments, and guiding students through different concepts in religious studies. Each week, students are assigned readings, and during the discussion sessions, I provide an overview of the material, highlight key points, and facilitate group discussions. Studies have shown that discussions are often more effective than traditional lectures, so the goal is to engage students in active learning.

Devika: That sounds like a great way to learn. Can you give us an example of how one of these discussions unfolds?

Bhargava: Sure! The session starts with a short lecture where I outline key points from the readings. Then, students break into small groups to discuss specific aspects of the topic. We then come together for a class-wide discussion where students share their perspectives, ask questions, and challenge each other’s viewpoints. This approach encourages critical thinking and deeper engagement with the subject matter.

Devika: You also hold the title of ‘Logic Bully.’ Can you tell us more about that?

Bhargava: (Laughs) Yes, so ‘Logic Bully’ is a term I use to challenge what I call “neo-atheism” in India. There’s a movement in India where people claim to be atheists but haven’t formally studied logic or philosophy. Many of them adopt atheism for political reasons rather than philosophical ones. My goal is to highlight these inconsistencies and encourage a more informed discussion about atheism and religion.

Devika: Why do you think neo-atheism has gained such popularity?

Bhargava: I wrote an article on this recently, where I discussed three categories of atheists in India. One group adopts atheism for political reasons, another is genuinely philosophically inclined, and the third is simply unaware of the deeper philosophical discourse. The first category is the most dominant in India, but their understanding of atheism is often shallow. Many prominent figures claim to be atheists without having studied the philosophical foundations of their stance. For example, they might admire Richard Dawkins, who is a great biologist but not a philosopher. This lack of philosophical rigor weakens their arguments.

Devika: That’s an interesting perspective. Have you ever had a moment where you completely turned the tables in a discussion with a neo-atheist?

Bhargava: Absolutely. The biggest issue with many self-proclaimed atheists is that they don’t commit to the actual definition of atheism. Philosophically, atheism is the belief that ‘God does not exist.’ However, many of them say they simply ‘lack belief’ in God’s existence, which is actually agnosticism, not atheism. So, my first step is always to clarify definitions. Once they realize that their stance is closer to agnosticism than atheism, they often rethink their position.

Devika: I see your point. That must lead to some intense debates!

Bhargava: Yes, but the heat usually comes from their side. They often assume I’m a theist trying to trick them, but I’m actually agnostic. I don’t take a definitive stance on the existence of God—I simply advocate for logical consistency. The challenge arises when they try to argue for atheism without understanding formal logic or philosophical arguments. In debates, they tend to reference Wikipedia fallacies without realizing those fallacies don’t apply in the context of our discussions. It’s an uphill battle trying to educate them while also debating them at the same time!

Devika:So, Bhargava, what’s your goal? What is the main objective you’re working towards?

Bhargava: My goal is to ensure that Indian atheists are philosophically educated before engaging in debates. Right now, many rely solely on science, but that approach isn’t enough. Science is a valid reason to be an atheist, but atheism itself doesn’t necessarily require science. You can arrive at atheism independently of being scientific. I want to see a more philosophically informed discourse so that the intellectual landscape of India moves up a level.

Devika: Interesting! You focus on both the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion. How do you see their relationship?

Bhargava: Philosophy of religion falls under religious studies—it involves analyzing religious traditions, cultures, theology, and belief systems. The philosophy of science, on the other hand, is about understanding the foundation of the scientific method. While they don’t necessarily overlap, they aren’t rivals either. Science investigates a mind-independent reality, while religion considers the observer’s perspective and subjective experience of reality. Science relies on evidence and utility, but that doesn’t invalidate religious experiences or the philosophy of religion. They are two different ways of understanding existence.

Devika: If you had a time machine and could have a conversation with any historical figure, who would it be and why?

Bhargava: Definitely Isaac Newton. He’s the father of classical physics and arguably the most significant figure in science, even more than Einstein or Darwin. But what many don’t realize is that Newton was also deeply religious. He was a theist and explored theological questions in his Principia, where he discussed the concept of a deity using ontological and cosmological arguments. He was a polymath—excelling in science, theology, and mathematics. That diversity would make for a fascinating conversation.

Devika: Suppose you’re stranded on a deserted island and could take only one book with you. What would it be?

Bhargava:How to Survive on a Stranded Island.

Devika: (Laughs) I think people might have expected something more philosophical, but that’s a very practical choice!

Bhargava: Exactly! That’s the book that would keep me in the game.

Devika: If you had to settle the age-old debate between science and religion on a cosmic scale, what would your opening statement be?

Bhargava: I would start with the fundamental question: Why does something exist rather than nothing? Everything stems from that existential inquiry. Science and religion may take different routes, but ultimately, they return to this question. That’s where I would begin.

Devika: Fascinating. So, what’s next for you?

Bhargava: I plan to finish my PhD by 2027 along with dual master’s degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering and energy engineering. After that, I’ll be applying for academic positions as a professor. And of course, I’ve always dreamed of working at NASA. I’ll be applying to NASA and SpaceX as soon as I graduate—I want to be an astronaut.

Devika: That’s incredible! And what about your passion for religious studies?

Bhargava: That will always continue. Studying religion and philosophy is a lifelong journey. Recently, I got married in 2024, and through that experience, I realized how much depth there is in Indian traditions—many of which I had previously overlooked. Now, I want to explore them more deeply and understand the philosophies behind these customs.

Devika: Let’s switch things up with some rapid-fire questions. Ready?

Bhargava: Let’s do it!

Devika: Aerospace or philosophy—if you had to pick one?

Bhargava: Aerospace engineering.

Devika: What’s the craziest thought you’ve ever had while looking at the night sky?

Bhargava:What if I witness a supernova?

Devika: If you had ten seconds to explain the meaning of life to an AI, what would you say?

Bhargava:The meaning of life is to survive while maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering for all beings.

Devika: What’s a major misconception people have about religious philosophy?

Bhargava: That it’s entirely false. Just because something lacks scientific evidence doesn’t mean it’s false—it needs to be understood through a subjective lens.

Devika: What’s your guilty pleasure TV show when you’re not debating philosophy or science?

Bhargava:Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Big Bang Theory.

Devika: Which is more mind-blowing—quantum physics or a deep religious experience?

Bhargava: Quantum physics! But a deep religious experience is definitely profound as well.

Devika: What’s your secret superpower—something only you can do?

Bhargava: Explaining concepts effectively. People often tell me they understand things better when I explain them, which I take as a huge compliment.

Devika: That’s definitely a superpower! Lastly, if you were given a spaceship with unlimited fuel for a month, where would you go?

Bhargava: Even with unlimited fuel, I’d still only have a month. So, I’d just go to the moon and back—multiple times!

DevikaMajumder: If you had to give up one modern-day luxury, what would it be?

Bhargava Joshi: I think it would be traveling in my car because of the emissions it causes.

Devika: Oh, that’s a thoughtful choice. What’s your most embarrassing childhood memory?

Bhargava: Getting a beating from my mom because I forgot something important at school—my entire school bag!

Devika: Oh no! That must have been tough. Now, let’s talk about challenges. What kind of challenges have you faced throughout your journey?

Bhargava: The biggest challenge has been learning philosophy on my own. Since I didn’t have an undergraduate background in it, I had no idea where to begin. I had to figure out which texts to read and how to navigate them. One of the most difficult aspects was understanding formal logic. Even though I have studied mathematics all my life, formal logic is a different beast in philosophy. Learning it as a prerequisite was a significant challenge.

Another major challenge is convincing people online to engage with academic readings instead of relying on random blogs or internet opinions. Many times, when academic readings contradict their established beliefs, they become defensive and even aggressive. It often devolves into personal attacks rather than constructive debate. Encouraging people to step out of their comfort zones and read scholarly works, even when they challenge their beliefs, has been an ongoing struggle.