.
.
Introductory
Comment:
.
Surveys
indicate that the cultural evolution in our time leads to increasing “atheism”
or “absence of religiosity” among the highly educated and wealthy segment
of the population.This may be caused
by the progress of industry and science, by more attentive observation
of reality, and by global communication of diversity in cultures, thought,
or faith – and by more open emphasis on “worldly pleasures” in our modern
culture.On the other hand, church
affiliation and attendance grows in the “developing” countries, religious
fundamentalism is on the increase, and esoteric spirituality attracts more
followers – all the while, the search for a meaning of life continues to
occupy young and old alike.
.
Human
inquisitiveness, the practical search for understanding this world, for
protection or assistance, and the philosophical search for meaning in our
lives may have been the motivation for the evolution of religions, but
they are also the motivation for the evolution of the sciences.
.
The
sciences continue to search for the ultimate cause of existence, mainly
in the physical world, but also in regard to the origin of the highly effective,
interwoven laws and constants of nature, and of the natural evolution at
the rate in time as observed.But
what if these questions lead only to mystery?What
room does science leave for the moral and emotional needs of humanity –
in personal life, in society, in questions of social justice, international
assistance, or even international interference?Can
the “social sciences” – anthropology, sociology – and psychology provide
adequate answers and guidance?What
if they cannot?
.
Religions
must also continue in the search for a better understanding of the essence
of existence, “God” – or of the assumed spiritual forces – by questioning
their own historically formulated dogma in view of new insights, of scientific
reality, or of factual observation – and in view of the damage done by
fundamentalism within their own faiths.But
what if religions cannot change their dogma as when they see it firmly
and inflexibly based on some historic “revelation”, teaching, and scripture?What
is left for such religion in the future of an evolving world?Can
the world tolerate religions that are abusive, weaken self-reliance, prevent
the reduction of suffering, limit opportunities, or become dangerous?In
the discourse with the sciences, must religion retreat and restrict itself
to the psychological needs of the human mind in longing for meaning, inspiration,
comfort, and a solid foundation for human “values”?Which
religion can speak for international, global justice?
.
Is
there (and can one hope for) a possible convergence between the inspiration
and comfort a scientist may derive from his or her vision of the universe
or nature, and the one obtained by a believer in a benevolent, modern religion
that encourages caring service, basic human values, self-reliance, reduction
of suffering, and the increase of opportunities fairly for all in this
world?
.
.
Definitions (abbreviated):
.
Religion:
A
system of faith (the sum of beliefs or convictions accepted as true) beyond
scientific proof concerning transcendental (not objectively and reproducibly
recordable) phenomena, beings, forces or events
.
Philosophy:
A
system of thought proceeding from acceptable propositions to conclusions
by strict reasoning – related to a variety of fields, including certain
questions of theology, ethics, and aesthetics.
.
Scientific
Theory:
A
scientific supposition (unproven) based on scientific hypotheses or assumed
causalities – expected to be proven by subsequent scientific and reproducible
observation – but subject to change whenever new evidence becomes available.Most
of scientific “knowledge”, as proven by repeatable experiments or repeatedly
verified predictions, may be valid in restricted domains only and may need
change when considering larger domains.
.
Assumption:
The
utilization in thought of an unproven fact, uncertain event, or unproven
causality merely on the basis of expected veracity.
.
Meaning:
Aim,
purpose, or intent.
.
.
What
is the origin of religions?
.
There
is a factual or scientific way and there is also a religious way of looking
at the origin of religions.
.
In
a factual or scientific way of looking at the origin of religions,
one has to consider some important observations:
-The
human mind thinks in terms of causalities.If
some phenomenon happened, something else must have caused it to happen
– whether in the arrival of suitable weather for farmers, good luck for
historical hunters and warriors, or personal health problems and their
cures.Are superior, transcendental
forces involved in the events of this world?
-Human
action is purpose-oriented – whether to obtain an effect or just to obtain
some pleasure.In a philosophical
sense, that gives each action a “meaning”.Did
the creating force of the universe have any meaning in mind – for the world
or for us humans?
-In
an often hostile and complex world, individuals and societies have always
been in need of protection, assistance, guidance, inspiration to
develop strength, comfort in suffering, and support beyond their
own means, especially in situations of distress.Can
one obtain such protection, assistance, guidance, inspiration, comfort,
and support from presumed superior forces that are believed to influence
and direct the events in this world and in our lives?
-The
question of one’s own or a loved one’s life and death – of
appearing in life upon birth, of now actually being here, fully participating
in reality, and then, after death, not to be any longer, not to
exist – has always mystified thinking humans.Does
the newborn come from somewhere?Does
the deceased merely go somewhere else?
-There
were – and always are – some individuals in any society or culture who
search for a deeper understanding of factual, philosophical, or moral problems,
for a deeper level of causality, meaning, and truth, and for better answers,
solutions, or guidance.Some individuals
are gifted with more detailed recognition, some with more holistic
views, and some with a degree of phantasy.
-Religious
thought takes place in the brain.Basically,
human thought in the brain consists of processing perceived information
and memory elements – sometimes influenced by emotions or moods.Explanations,
strategies, and systems of thought are mentally developed in a combinatorial
process over time – as the building of a mansion is built out of various
components (see the author’s two essays, on “Creative Thought” and “Mental
Creativity”, on the website www.schwab-writings.com).
-The
human brain has the capability for imagination or, in using a different
word concept, for “visualizations”.[1]Visualizations
are the appearance of images, sounds, or verbal concepts (the “inner voice”)
in the awareness of the mind independent of actual sensory perceptions.These
visualizations are the most important foundation of the human mind’s capability
for thought, understanding, and creativity.They
can occur in daily life, during a conversation, in meditation, or in dreams.
-Do
the transcendental spirits, or “God”, communicate directly (or through
angelic messengers) with the human mind?Do
they speak to selected individuals in “revelations”?The
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths believe so and firmly base their teachings
on such revelations.If there are
contradictions between different revelations, which are true?What
if common observation or science later disproves some revelations?
-Visualizations
of the mind can be mentally processed and expanded as in
a virtual reality.At times,
they may be equated to reality (as,
for example, in phases of mental creativity, strategy formulation, or storytelling
– see the authors of great literature).
-The
human brain is also capable of exalted states, as if being in a different
reality – of great calm, torment, sensing the receiving of “revelations”,
or in experiencing “enlightenment”.
-Most
humans have the tendency to hold on to a once-accepted system
of mental concepts or explanations.
-Most
common systems of thought, interpretations of the world, or ideologies
are based on selective observation or selective valuation (often
confined by a specific culture) and by exclusion of divergent or contradictory
arguments (as possibly accepted in other cultures).
The
brain’s capability for and the dynamic nature of visualizations
independent of sensory input is of special importance in regard to religious
thought.Most people are capable of
mental “manipulations” (the intentional changing) or expansions of
mental visualizations.For
example, manipulation of visualizations occurs in the minds of technical
designers in the process of creating a new product.Most
people can draw pictures of objects, individuals, or situations they have
never seen but have heard about.
.
A
more lifelike development of visualizations occurs to writers of
fiction novels.They
often experience the characters in their fictions taking on “a life
of their own”.These characters
can develop their own personality, go through the experiences of a fictitious
life, talk as living individuals would, and make decisions that lead to
plausible consequences.
.
Many
“visualizations” of the brain are of a verbal nature (the “inner voice”),
especially for people who work more or less intensely as writers or speakers.Speech
also occurs in many dreams.Other
professionals, however – such as musical composers or creators of perfumes
– may work primarily with non-visual and non-verbal visualizations – as
with sound or fragrance-related visualizations of their respective professions.
.
It
is not uncommon that people – and not just children – believe in
the voices they hear in their minds or the stories they invent
(or visualize) themselves – especially when their ideas are very intense,
when the stories are important to the children, or after telling or hearing
their stories often enough.This evolution
of narrative, and then believing in narrative, can be observed
in all historic religions and ideologies.This
phenomenon occurred equally during the formation of the Christian religion;
see the book “Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press,
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-518249-1.In our
own time, see the evolution of narrative in those political systems, which
exaggerate personality worship of their leaders.
.
In the beginning,
early in history, humans’ search to explain the observed phenomena of nature
through findings of causality led to the assumption of causing forces
to which, consequently, a reality had to be accorded.The
capability to establish and enhance thought visualizations allows vague
ideas or weak perceptions – for example, a breeze of air, a shadow, a noise,
or an effect of light – to develop into concepts of spiritual beings.This
occurs more easily when the descriptions of such beings had already been
communicated by others.Therefore,
the description of spiritual beings is, to a large extent, consistent
within cultures and may migrate from one culture to another.
.
The continued
expansion of such concepts over historical times led to beliefs in a large
variety of spirits or gods, as they appeared in the primitive religions
of various cultures.Increasing philosophical
thought, the appearance of new questions of existence in the evolution
of cultures (for example, the question of the “meaning” of life or the
need for better behavioral guidance), the observation of life or nature,
and the explanatory thoughts by gifted or powerful individuals led to higher
religions.Such religions
can be seen as realms of virtual realities, more or less
consistent with observed realities or, at least, not blatantly in contradiction
to them.When contradictions did
arise, as after the evolution of the sciences, religions either negated
such contradictions and suffered in validity and support, or they
became modified.
.
Emotions
and moods can strongly
influence thought and visualizations.Emotions
and moods are influenced mainly by the biochemistry of the body and the
brain.Some mood-enhancing biochemical
substances are produced by the body; others are absorbed into the body
from nutrition, and also from coffee, alcohol, drugs, incense, fumes, and
pharmaceutical products.
.
One can speak
of a “state of mind” when exceptional calm and tranquility
set in, slowing down not only the body but also the thought and visualization
processes.Occasionally, this leads
to a reduction of the influence on awareness coming from the mostly dominant
analytical thought in the left side of the brain.Consequently,
this leads to an advance of holistic, three-dimensional thought from the
right side of the brain in reaching awareness.Many
scientific and technical inventions occurred that way – possibly, also,
many religious “insights”, as in “meditation” (a mental exercise
developed for that purpose).
.
Other states
of mind can include tormenting agitation, anxieties, exalted states
of abstract visualizations, and the reception of “revelations” in the form
of visions or divine messages (for instance, oracles, prophesies, and divine
appearances).
.
In sum,
religiosity is a consequence of the functioning of the brain and must be
expected in all human cultures.
.
In other words,
religiosity occurs naturally and necessarily in consequence of the capability
for visualizations in the course of human thought, appearing as a virtual
reality in the minds of humans, especially in exalted states of mind or
in meditation and prayer.
.
In modern
thought – as in ancient times – unexplained phenomena lead to speculations
concerning their causality.But in
our time, scientific theories are used for explanation, assuming
that, at the end, there will always be found a factual or scientific cause,
not the action of a spirit or god.
.
There is one
exception, however, and that is the question of the ultimate origin
of the universe and its laws in cosmogony.Mystery
remains in that point, where even a scientist can, or must assume,
an ultimately proto-physical, super-physical, or transcendental “Formative
Essence of Existence”, by whatever name one may want to describe
it.
.
Two main groups
of concerns of the human mind find their expression in religions:
-The
search for an understanding of the world, the universe, the
forces of nature – their origin (Creation), evolution, and future – the
possible meaning of existence – and the place of humans in
that world, including the question of a life after death.Answers
to these questions – or the lack thereof – may lead to confusion and despair,
or they may lead to “inspiration”, to gaining inner clarity and strength
with which to pursue a benevolent course through life.
-The
search for protection, assistance, support, and comfort by spiritual
forces and for behavioral guidance within society – assuming that
God-pleasing behavior will attract divine protection or support.This
concept can lead to the assumption of judgment and a compensating
afterlife.It can also, possibly,
lead to a search for escape from suffering in a Nirvana.Negative
answers to these questions may also lead to despair, but some answers may
lead to mental clarity consistent with the demands of life and to comfort
in suffering.
.
.
As indicated
before, there is also a religious way of looking at the origin of
religions.One can consider
the following thoughts:
.
-Humans
evolved in nature such that they can perceive revelations by God.
-Similar
to the “anthropic principle”, one can actually talk about a “theologic
principle” whereby all evolution occurred such that at the end an organism
occurred (humans) that can perceive divine revelation.
-In
humans, God created – by way of evolution – a (subordinate) partner for
communication with Him within the universe – adding a miraculous form of
life and mentality to the universe.
-At
first, while humans were primitive, such communication between God and
humans was simple and halting.But
later in historic times, as mankind matured, such communication became
increasingly clear and specific.Some
Christians believe in a future second coming of Christ to bring even further
revelation or communication.
-Revelation
is the form of communication from God to humans.Prayer
is the form of communication from humans to God, supplemented by ritual
and sacrifice.
.
There are
some serious problems with this religious concept of the origin of religions
and the viability of communication between “God” and humans.The
major reasons are the differences and contradictions between religions,
their often despicable degeneration, and the absolute lack of divine response
to urgent prayer in many of the calamities befalling mankind, whether self-inflicted
or caused by nature.
.
In a moment
of greatest significance in the evolution of theological thought, Pope
Benedict XVI, when visiting a former concentration camp in
.
Do these words
imply of a sharing of guilt by God in what occurred at the camps, at least
by neglect?Or do these words indicate
a breakdown of communication between God and us humans – indicating that
God did not listen to the cries of human despair?
.
While the
Pope spoke, a terrible earthquake in
.
All questions
– including the above mentioned differences and contradictions between
religions and their occasional degeneration – lead to doubts in divine
participation (active or preventative) in the events of this world and,
hence, in ongoing communication between God and humans or humans and God
– consequently leading to doubts in the religious concept of the origin
of religions.
.
But this still
leaves the mystery at the ultimate origin of the universe and its
laws in cosmogony, where even a scientist can, or must assume,
an ultimately proto-physical, super-physical, or transcendental “Formative
Essence of Existence”, by whatever name one may want to describe
it.
.
.
The
search for an understanding of the world and its “meaning”:
Neither the
various religions nor the sciences have found a final answer to the ultimate
causation of Creation.They
present only a
description of Creation.Neither
have religions or the sciences found a meaning of existence.Actually,
religions either do not indicate a meaning for existence or leave it as
being “for the pleasure” of the Creating Spirit.Additionally,
science recognizes the finality of existence in its ultimate
collapse or dissolution in radiation – thereby leaving no aim, purpose,
or meaning for Creation.
.
Actually,
there is little mental or behavioral difference between
the firm acceptance of a specific scientific speculation (or scientific
theory) and a religious belief or religion.The
difference between the two lies in the value and priority one gives to
various mental inputs, specifically to factual, scientific observations
as opposed to traditional, spiritual visualizations or speculation. [2]
But the academic disputes between adherents of opposed scientific theories
can be as vicious as the disputes between different religious sects.
.
.
The
search for protection or support by spiritual forces and for behavioral
guidance:
This is the
question of the foundation of ritual and of moral laws on
divine revelation or dictate.It is
also the question of reward or punishment in accordance with
personal behavior (including sacrifices, repentance, and faith), judged
by adherence to those laws – and hope for grace.
.
On the one
hand, the
appearance of moral laws in the minds of leaders
of mankind or priests would have occurred in the form of an “inner
voice” of thought (see the above description of mental visualizations
and processes) and could easily have been seen as divine “revelation”.On
the other hand, priests and common people must very well have assumed that
culturally despicable acts were displeasing to their perceived exalted
(yet anthropomorphic) gods and could have led to their anger – thereby
anchoring moral laws in the perceptions of the expectations of their
gods, often based on their culture.
.
Finally, it
was quite common in historic times to falsely attribute important writings
or statements to important personalities, thereby giving higher rank and
influence to such writings or statements.This
can even be found among writings included in the Bible, as proven by modern
scripture analysis (for example, the book of Deuteronomy and some of the
“Letters” in the New Testament).Therefore,
attribution of culturally desirable moral laws to divine dictate
may have been common in antiquity.
.
In the modern
world, the laws for proper behavior are based on the common human needs
– security, protection of personal property and well-being, assistance
when in need, certain fundamental human rights (resulting in the support
of the poor or weak and providing some dignity), trustworthiness in interhuman
relations or in business, and the expectation that politicians act in the
common interest.
.
In this context,
it is important to note that social behavior among animals
was originally based on the natural appearance of ethical (unselfish)
behavior in the course of evolution, as in caring for offspring
or pack members, in reciprocity with selected individuals, and in self-sacrifice
for the pack.This behavior provided
specific benefits in propagation or prevailing in the struggle of or for
life.The above-mentioned ethical
(unselfish) behavior is anchored by nature in significant personal emotions,
much refined in advanced human cultures.The
success and efficiency of societies depended upon the “ethical” behavior
of the members.In other words,
“ethics” or “morality” is both emotional and practical.
.
Consequently,
a modern person can see all laws of behavior ultimately resulting
from the needs of human nature (allowing for a certain diversity
of cultural developments and learning).In
other words, human nature is founded in Creation and in how it evolved.Is
this a circuitous way of possibly anchoring moral laws again in divine
will or expectation as expressed in Creation?
.
Several religions
provided simplified models for the meaning of human life.The
combination of concepts for divinely based moral laws with concepts for
an afterlife led to the expectation of an intervening
divine judgment to determine admission based on adherence to those
laws.Consequently, with the increased
expectation for the quality of that afterlife, real life on Earth was seen
merely as an unpleasant transition in this existential mechanism
of birth in sin, obedient struggle, faith, and redemption for eternal happiness.
.
In another
model (Buddhist), in selective concentration on the suffering in this world,
reincarnation and ultimate escape from miserable existence are put in the
foreground, leading to the denial of opportunities for personal growth
or joyful and active participation in this world.
.
These narrow
and highly selective models of the meaning of human life totally neglect
our own participation in the grandiose world we live in while
we actually live – in expanding observation, in personal unfolding
and growth, in caring contributing toward better conditions for
others, society, or the environment – and in joy about all
the beauty in the arts and nature that our sensory and emotional
formation, as a gift of nature, is allowed to perceive.
.
In addition
to ethical laws, most religions developed laws for complex or burdensome
rituals and, in many cases, aberrations in laws that
may once have been based on hygienic needs, cultural habits, or superstition.Examples
can be found in religiously prescribed bodily mutilations, rules for the
preparation of food, prohibition of certain foods, hairdos, dress codes
(especially head cover), and postures – all believed to have been demanded
by God, the Creator of the great universe.
.
The
belief in life after death, at least for the “soul”
– in a next world, in paradise or hell – is of
special importance
to some religions.The mental
capability for visualizations – and, especially, the capability for dreaming
– may be an explanation for these beliefs.When
dreaming, a person may perceive himself or herself to live quite actively
in those dreams while the body rests as if dead.The
similarity of sleep and death leads to the presumed parallelism between
dream and a continued existing of human awareness (or the “soul”) after
death.This leads to a belief in the
separation of soul and body as two different entities and in a spiritual
“next world” for the souls, in the “beyond”, in heaven, or in hell.Thus,
many people live in two worlds, the religious and the real
one – Sundays in prayer and in church, Mondays in business or in the scientific
laboratory.
.
Much of the
above applies to the Jewish and Muslim faiths as much as
it does to the Christian one.But,
in all three of them, the religious justification for attacks
and terrorism against non-believers or other tribes – or their cruel suppression
and dislocation based on “God’s promise” – is not tolerable any longer
in the modern world.(The
Masai of Africa believe that God gave them all the cattle of the world.Would
we let them take possession of ours?How
about the Israeli occupation and settlements in
.
A word should
be said about Hinduism and
Buddhism.The original Hinduism
possibly represents the deepest philosophical thought concerning the world
in early times – obviously having been limited by the scientific knowledge
and religious concepts of its time.Hinduism
recognized the duality of creativity and destruction in the
essence of nature, but presented the belief in one ultimate essence,
in a separation of soul and body, and suggested a path toward
mental peace or moral accomplishment.Religious
differentiations and degradations occurred at later times, as did Hindu
reform movements in modern times.The
deeply engrained traditions and the promise of liberation from pervasive
worldly misery by means of rituals or spiritual endeavors made it difficult
to reach a unified view with modern scientific thought – leading
the modern Hindu to a life in two worlds, in the escapist religious and
the ever-expansive real-worldly – the same as that which happened to modern
Christians.
.
Buddhism,
even more escapist than Hinduism, started out as specifically not being
a religion, but a Hindu-based philosophy concerning the conduct of life
in the face of all the suffering in this world.Migration
of the soul (reincarnation) and meditation exercises were accepted
from the dominant Hindu religion.Religious
adoration of Buddha and his relics and of lesser Buddhist saints developed
later, as did the concepts of a Buddhist paradise.The
meditation exercises, as in Zen, correspond to the philosophical and not-religious
aspect of Buddhism and Hindu heritage.The
phenomenon of “enlightenment” is merely a premium resulting from consistent
meditation, providing the disciple with the pleasant sensation of “exaltation”
without much practical value.Enlightenment
provides the emotional feeling of virtually “understanding” the whole world,
but it has never helped solve any political or practical problem.
.
It is specifically
Buddhism that provides an asymmetrical view
of existence–
with exclusive emphasis on the escape from suffering while neglecting all
opportunities for a “fulfilled” life in personal development, participation,
and joy.Hinduism and Buddhism
both – as also the Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions – lack a central
emphasis on personal responsibility and a demand for personal initiative
for an improvement of the state of our civilization and society or for
the improvement of living conditions in this world.
.
.
What
provides for the stability of religions?
.
Once the virtual
reality of religious concepts has found a certain inner coherence and has
become part of cultural tradition, even increasing contradictions with
advancing thought or observations that offer better insight into actual
reality at first do not result in changes of religious concepts or philosophical
dogma.For example, the discovery
of natural evolution with all the cruelty resulting from over-propagation
and selection of the fittest – not to mention natural or technical catastrophes,
the many cruel methods developed by nature for attack and defense between
living beings, and the prevalence of diseases, pests, and predators among
all plants and animals – did not lead to a modification of the concept
of an always loving, providing, and all-planning God-Father in the Christian
religion.“Intelligent Design” is
still being discussed. [3]
.
The reason
for adherence to once-chosen religious concepts may be a defense
against the loss of mental security or destabilization of cultural values
and coherence, especially since contradictory new insights initially
don’t offer coherent systems of new religious thought.
.
The
defense of the habitual religion or the habitual system of thought occurs
mainly through denial, questioning of the consistency or general validity
of the objections, reference to selective observations,
or formation of personal preferences and priorities in assessing the importance
of arguments – often
in great personal hostility toward the “heretic”, “apostate”, or “infidel”.
.
For example,
most people still see nature in a romantic view and don’t care much about
the cruelty therein.Most people give
little thought to what the fact of “natural evolution” could mean
to religious dogma.To most
of us, Christ’s teachings from the “Sermon on the Mount” – of brotherly
love and the ideals of humility, mercy, pureness of heart, and peacemaking
– should still be the ideals for our lives in society and for this world.
.
Many people
can still point out how prayer has helped them and how blessed their own
life has been – while neglecting the tragedies of others.Do
those beliefs in Divine interference form a religion of survivors and
winners – neglecting the perished and the losers?What
can the individuals of wasted or crushed lives believe in, who also fervently
appealed to their God without response, especially when the victims were
innocent or youngsters?Just
look at the tsunamis, earthquakes, and horrors of war – and the daily reports
of crimes and accidents.What was
the guilt or “sin” of all these victims?The
response that their suffering is merely meant as a lesson for the survivors
is either thoughtless or immensely cruel.Even
Pope Benedict XVI, in his above-mentioned speech on
.
In our time,
most people give little thought to what the recent discovery
of the cosmic vastness, the expectation of extraterrestrial intelligence,
and the ultimate dissolution of the whole universe, as shown by
astronomy and astrophysics, mean to theology.
.
In a weak
defense of present thinking, it is often pointed out that Christ’s sacrifice
for us here on Earth may have meant to apply to all civilizations in all
of the universe at all times.Would
that also be retroactive by billions of years when applied to earlier civilizations
in cosmic times?
.
Each religion
still attempts to find enough selective observations or arguments
– strained as they may be – that justify its continued existence.In
case of contradictions, people often willfully define what they consider
the most important issue, argument, or explanation applicable to
their own religion, thought, or lives, while suppressing others.
.
Commonly,
the administrators of religions – the priests – do not want to lose their
positions.Simple people do
not want to lose the traditions they are endeared to – that provide
security and comfort in suffering – even the hope for a much
better existence in a world-to-come, as in the case of Christianity and
Islam – or the hope for escape from suffering, as in Buddhism.
.
.
What
provides for the change or evolution of religions?
.
Human religious
thought went already once through a large step of abstraction when animist
polytheism was displaced by faith in only
one God in heaven.
.
Initially,
each human clan or tribe had its own god, as perceived in the mental world,
language, and art of the respective tribe, with emphasis on tribe-specific
characteristics of survival, good luck, and thought.Even
the god of
.
As larger
questions loomed, mainly the question of the creation of the world, not
all those gods could be supreme.Only
one of them could have been the true Creator.Obviously,
it always was – and still is among modern religions – the own tribe’s god
who was declared supreme – a difficult problem as empires, travel, and
commerce grew and, consequently,the
horizon of philosophical thought.The
many cruel religious wars were sad consequences.
.
The transition
from the polytheism of primitive cultures to monotheism was not an easy
one.The quiet springs in nature
no longer harbored nymphs, the wild oceans were no longer ruled by Poseidon,
and the sun was not a God-driven heavenly chariot any longer.
.
How
was it possible that all those deities that were so evident before, were
now, all of a sudden, said never to have existed?Had
all those people of times past prayed in vain, addressing their prayers
to spiritual emptiness, to figments of their imagination?
.
The diverse
Christian cults of saints and the adoration of Mary, with numerous chapels
and places of pilgrimage where absolution could be obtained, were substitutes
serving all those naive, sincere, and often suffering people and did them
good.More importantly, the new
hope for admission to a wonderful “paradise” and the vision of a loving
God-Father, combined with the social structure in supportive congregations,
facilitated the transition to the new religion.
.
Science
and knowledge have
progressed in the modern world.Our
modern life takes place in an urbane, global culture with knowledge of
astronomy, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology,
and the expectation of extraterrestrial life in many places in the universe.This
knowledge-based cosmic view brings the necessity for another step
in the development of religious thought and dogma.Theology
must not only explain human spiritual life (or afterlife), it must see
the world not just in human dimensions.Modern
theology must also include the greatness and the dynamic character of the
universe, nature, and mind.Modern
theology must not only address the question of the origin of the world
(cosmogony), the anchoring of moral laws, and purpose of human existence,
but also the pervasive injustice and cruelty in natural evolution, the
multiple great catastrophes throughout the geological ages, and the future
vanishing of our own Earth and of all the many billions of galaxies in
a cosmic collapse or in the coldness of ever-expanding radiation.This
leads to the question of putting us humans into our place in this universe
– or “multiverse” – as it really is.
.
But
how does the change or evolution of religions occur in view
of the strong stabilizing forces of religions as indicated before?
.
History
indicates that there is a difference between minor evolutionary changes
within the context of established religions, and greater “reformations”
or new ideas (“disruptive innovations”) leading to new forms of an earlier
religion or to totally new religions.
.
The
minor changes may result from variations in ritual, emphasis
on specific aspects of a religion, invigorating activism leading to a variation
in emphasis, new theological thought complementing the existing one, and,
in most cases, from strong personalities with their own personal views
and preferences.Examples are the
appearance of the numerous monastic orders in the Catholic Church, of the
many Protestant churches or sects, of the various Jewish variations of
faith or culture, and of the many Muslim sects.In
our time of religious crisis in the modern world, many church leaders would
like to provide new vigor to their respective religions through selection
and emphasis on proper new ideals (or slogans), new forms of organization
(or activist groups), and, if necessary, new rituals (or music) primarily
appealing to the young generation.
.
The
accumulation of many small changes within a religion can
lead to almost a new religion.Is
the Catholic Church of today the same as it was 2,000 years ago when Christianity
existed merely among the disciples and followers of Christ?Are
all the communities of the Jewish faith today the same as the religious
community of Jews before the Assyrian onslaught more than 2,500 years ago?Have
the diverse Muslim faith communities remained the same as the Muslim community
of
.
In
the course of such cumulative changes, not all religions rise to new height.Some
deteriorate.Of Lao-tse’s
sublime teachings, only migrating “monks” peddling remedies remained for
a while.Of the Shinto religion, little
more than naturalistic rituals remain now.Some
of the original religions of
.
Major
changes of religions were not always intended to be the starting point
of new religions;they may have been
meant merely to “reform” existing ones.However,
the rejection of such reforms by the establishment and support for the
new ideas by the public forced those budding movements to further elaboration
and a stronger stand – ultimately leading to the formation of new religions
and churches.Such developments are
based primarily on the strength of the founders or leaders of such movements,
whether Jesus, a Lubavitcher Rebbe, Buddha, Luther, or some modern spiritual
innovator or guru.
.
.
What
is the reason for the diversity of religions?
.
There
are two main reasons for the diversity of religions: the selective
emphasis on very specific problems or visions and the diversity of the
cultures where the religions emerge.
.
For
the primitive religions of the North, the change of the seasons and the
territorial fight with neighboring tribes was in the foreground.For
the philosophers of the eastern
.
Modern
life emphasizes opportunities at least equally with problems.Problems
can be more easily resolved or tolerated if success is found in the pursuit
of opportunities.There were directions
of religiosity that emphasized certain role models of their times – the
powerful hero-image – but not the positive evolution of society as we see
it in our time in economic progress and social justice.Urukagina
did not become a saint of a religion – and neither did Solon, Archimedes,
Marc Aurel, Charles Magne, Ford, or Edison.
.
Culture
is a major factor in the origin and evolution of religions.As
indicated before, the explanation of some miraculous phenomenon in nature
or perceptions of the mind occurs more easily when the descriptions of
such events had already been communicated by others.Therefore,
the description of spiritual beings is, to a large extent, consistent
within cultures.For example,
the appearances of Mary, mother of Jesus, occurred often in Catholic areas
but never in Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or purely Buddhist areas.The
god of the Jews never spoke to any Chinese, Huns, Africans, or Germanic
tribes.Stories of the creation of
the world or of humans always occurred in the geographic area of the narrating
culture.The question remains, why
there did no (or very few) divine verbal “revelations” occur in
.
Contact between
different cultures through conquest or trade can lead to the migration
of religious concepts from one culture to another.Examples
for such migrations are the various innovations that occurred in ancient
Greek or Roman religious convictions and rituals – and, ultimately, the
introduction of Christianity.Some
additional examples are the newer concepts of “paradise” and the demand
for religious charity in the Buddhist world.
.
Christ’s
teaching of a new understanding of God and his laws for mankind could have
occurred only in the Jewish world.Muhammad’s
teaching could have occurred only in the remnant areas of the Roman-Christian-Jewish
world.Buddha’s teaching of escape
from reincarnation could have happened only in the Indian world.
.
In
other words, there is a correlation or interdependence between cultures
and religions.Religions are
a product of specific cultures.But
it is also true that religions form cultures.In
this sense, cultures become the product of religions.
.
.
What
is the content of truth of religions?
.
The
concept of “truth” is more easily employed in matters of science than in
matters of ethics, human behavior, or taboos.Consequently,
religions should refrain from authoritative statements about nature (including
the functioning of the human mind) that could or should be subject to scientific
exploration.This also includes the
descriptions of the process of “Creation” and of the subsequent
“natural” evolution of the world.But
as indicated before, the aboriginal source of the energy of the universe
(as expressed in the abstract phenomenon of the fields harbored and propagated
by space) and of the structure of the universe (as given by the laws, principles,
and constants of nature) – in other words, the question of the “Formative
Essence of Existence” – remains a mystery and, thereby, open to transcendental
(beyond physics) interpretation, whether one considers that religious or
just an open-minded view of this question.
.
Should,
or could, statements about the existence or non-existence of a “soul” be
a matter of the sciences?
.
Should,
or could, all matters of morals or ethics be a matter of anthropology,
sociology, and psychology?
.
Should,
or could, the definition of values for our personal lives, our societies,
and world order be a matter of the sciences?
.
Should
the concept of “sin” and “guilt” be redefined in view of the psychological
understanding of criminal behavior?
.
Should
the accomplishments or failures of individuals be seen in the context of
their natural gifts (or the lack among those), upbringing, and environment?
.
What
religious proscription for rituals and restrictions in nutrition can ever
be based on global “truth”?
.
Can
taboos be defined in a rational manner consistent with all cultures on
Earth – and contain any “truth”?
.
As
long as these questions cannot lead to scientific enquiry (including repetitive
experiments or predictions with consistent outcomes), one cannot speak
of scientific approaches – nor about factual “truths” in assessing the
answers to those questions.As long
as the answer to these questions cannot be arrived at with unquestionable
logic, one cannot speak of “philosophical truth”.
.
As
long as not all religions concur in answering these questions, one cannot
speak of a religious “certainty” (if not truth) of global validity in the
assessment of these questions.
.
Yet,
there are some universally accepted ethical standards concerning
the protection of life, property, and human dignity.These
standards are covered by most religious commands.Are
they, consequently, universally “true”?
.
Some
comments on taboos:
Moral
or ethical behavior can be defined as “unselfish behavior for the benefit
of another individual or society”.Taboos
exist largely in regard to sexual matters – as the covering or exposure
of certain regions of the body, certain movements, or verbal expressions.[4]The
social benefits of taboos can be seen in reducing excessive sexual arousal
in order to protect marital fidelity and young women.This
would constitute an “ethical” reason for taboos.All
else would be cultural, aesthetic, or hygienic – and part of the culture-forming
task or culture-expressing part of religion.
.
A
more fundamental question of religious truth concerns the
“belief in God”.This
belief, or its denial, is seen as the cornerstone of “believing” and of
“religion”.This is the question
of “faith”, “a-religiosity”, or “atheism”.
.
Can
fully rational people and scientists believe in God?Such
individuals should consider that science is built on the assumption that
existence is not fully arbitrary and random.The
fact that we exist, and observe the universe as it is, indicates that there
is a general validity of the laws of nature throughout our universe.In
their origin (within the Big Bang) one can see the action of a “Formative
Essence of Existence”, as indicated before.What
is the difference between a faith in God or a rational or scientific vision
of that Formative Essence of Existence?In
other words, the matter of truth regarding the questions
of a-religiosity and atheism is either a matter of lack of searching
for the ultimate foundation of our existence or simply a matter of different
verbal concepts (or definitions or understandings of what “God”
actually is – or is not).
.
What
remains as the content of truth in religion – one should
say, as the possible truth of some religions?Parallel
to science, it is the vision of some ultimate transcendental (not
“physical”) essence of existence that provided for its structure,
including ours, and thereby, for its origin (or existence), evolution,
and ultimate end.In other words,
there is little fundamental difference between the scientist’s search for
the origin of the order in the world, including the scientist’s expectation
of universal validity of the laws of nature, and a religious person’s faith
in God.
.
The
difference between the sciences and religions come from the fact that most
religions added in their beliefs the assumptions of certain character
traits of God, often very human ones.The
problem lies in the fact that these character traits often (or, mostly,)
cannot be generally confirmed by factual observation or, too often,
are clearly contradicted by general observation.
.
Also
parallel to the social sciences and psychology – recognizing
that we humans are social beings by nature – most religions present the
demand that we follow certain basic ethical laws, as in the protection
of life, property and human dignity.There
remains a wide area of uncertainty in detail – as about euthanasia,
abortion, divorce, the death penalty, the conduct of wars, the amount of
social obligations, international aid and all the ritual or nutritious
laws.
.
Beyond
these fundamental questions, historic cultural developments have
indicated a variety of possible ways to fulfillment, without providing
any permanent and universal “truth”.There
was hero worship in ancient times, not leading beyond endless
tribal warfare.All the following
great monarchies, from Roman times on, attempted to see their right to
rule based on divine mandate – leading among their subjects to an acceptance
of one’s position or one’s cast in life.In
several religions the view prevailed that fulfillment of human life consisted
of having to go through
trials and temptations in this world in order
to be admitted to paradise or Nirvana in the next one after death
– unless “faith” provides one with “redemption” – ignoring the great cruelty
in such a view when seeing all the calamities overcoming so many of the
innocent and children and also ignoring the pervasive cruelty in nature.
.
In
our time, rising wellbeing and, mainly, increasing information led to seeing
human fulfillment in certain forms of democracy – even within theocracies
– and, mainly, in increasing social responsibility.This
brings “Christian” social values to the center of ethical
thought, as the most appropriate ethical conviction for mankind’s course
– as expressed in either Christian, Jewish, or Muslim confessions.However,
independent of such traditionally formed “religious” thought, the renaissance,
enlightenment, and the success of the scientific-industrial revolution
in the modern world led to a tacit acceptance of human fulfillment
in personal mental growth through learning or exploration, and
the acceptance of the arts among the substantial forms of
fulfillment for mankind, whether God-demanded or demanded by our human
nature as it had been formed through natural evolution.
.
But
there remains contradiction between most of the religions and the
sciences in the question of the existence of a soul,
an ultimate judgment of all souls by God, and the immortality of the souls
in either paradise or hell.These
questions may remain as religious beliefs but not as “truths”.
.
.
What
are the potential benefits or liabilities of religion?
.
Religions –
once, in historic times, the all-encompassing search for understanding
of the world, but now, after the spin-off of science as a separate endeavor
of the human mind, restricted to the understanding of matters of spirituality
– have lost the benefit of explaining the process of the origin of
existence as in old Creation stories.Science
has taken over the explaining of the beginning of the universe.But
neither religions nor science are able to further explain the ultimate
foundation of existence in either God or a “Formative Essence of Existence”
– or the characteristics of those.
.
An
additional potential benefit of religion had been expected from a presentation
of “meaning” for human life, thereby providing direction,
inspiration, and comfort.But
neither religions nor science are able to explain any reason or purpose
for the origin of existence and, consequently, any meaning of existence.This
is especially the case in view of the limited duration of existence
of our universe.But if there
are any speculations about the cause for the appearance of existence and
our universe, should they not be identical between religions and science?
.
What
remains are decisions by human individuals or cultures which direction
to follow in fulfilling their potential in existence.The
preceding chapter discussed the variety of possible directions as offered
by historic cultural developments, spiritual leaders, religions, or speculation.It
takes a personal decision, “taking a stand”, in deciding upon a direction
one wants or feels that one has to pursue in life.Observation
indicates that fulfillment should be found not only in personal mental
or cultural evolution, but also in caring social coherence based on human
emotions, “values”, or benefit for society, and in the appreciation of
beauty in art and nature.
.
Religions
are expected to provide the benefit of emotional and philosophical inspiration
or comfort in distress in providing the view of a humanly understandable
and reachable divine force beyond any “cold” scientific logic.But
it is precisely this humanized view of the ultimate essence of existence,
of God, that practical observation and science cannot confirm.
.
But
both, the religious and the scientific view, provide a firm foundation
of values in a view of social and emotional human nature beyond a
cold and selfish interpretation.
.
The
benefit of religions is often seen in their culture-stabilizing and
–maintaining effect, especially by the “conservative” groups of
society, whether in the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist world,
which see in modern innovation a degradation of values and, possibly, a
risk for the survival of their respective culture.Nationalistic
elements are often mixed in with religious considerations – and with priestly
interests.
.
On
the other hand, fundamentalism is seen as one of the great problems
of our time (especially in the form of terrorism).Progressive
groups of society see essential benefit – if not the mission of mankind
– in progress.
.
The
great liabilities of religions occur when they lead to inadequate
handling of the problems of life, leading to depravation or violence and
preventing improvement – whether in the reduction of suffering
or the opening of opportunities fairly for all.
.
The
historic
formation and organizational structure of most religions prevent their
evolution or mental growth consistent with the development of cultures,
knowledge, and thought.
.
The
problems associated with the formation of professional organizations
with priestly hierarchies present additional liabilities of most
religions.
.
.
What
would life be without religions?
.
The
main concern of religious people is that a loss of religiosity would lead
to immoral, selfish, materialistic behavior and would leave no meaning
in life.
.
This
fear is based on the wrong assumption that ethics and all moral rules are
based solely on divine command.But,
as a matter of fact and as shown before,
ethics evolved naturally
at an early time of animal evolution as a benefit for procreation
and survival resulting from “social” behavior of groups of animals.Care
for offspring and genetically related individuals, reciprocity in behavior
with selected members of the group, and readiness for sacrifice for the
group became the genetically imprinted behavior patterns
of social animals and humans.As
civilizations arose in the course of human evolution, cultural learning
greatly expanded these basic behaviors in accordance with genetically
anchored ethical emotions and their resulting practical utility.Visionary
leaders brought the formulation of “laws” of conduct.Modern
societies introduced detailed civic legislation for protection
and conduct.
.
In
other words, genetically anchored human emotions and utility for
society will always restrain excessive selfishness and destructive abuse
by individual members of society.Even
if societies would reject religiosity, they would introduce laws (as they
largely have done already) to control behavior – and, thereby, would retain
teaching to foster “moral” and beneficial behavior.
.
This
explains the similarity of the rules of conduct between widely different
cultures, from the Sumerians (see Urukagina) to
.
There
is a practical concern that, in the absence of religions, there would
be less charity, less giving to the needy in society or those suffering
from calamities in distant parts of the world.There
were not enough surveys yet to confirm or contradict this point.It
could be that small individual donations as organized by churches would
be lacking.On the other hand, the
level of donations from the increasingly secular population of the developed
countries of the West did not get smaller.Natural
human ethical emotions still seem to prevail in basically ethical societies
or “cultures”.
.
There
are equal, or even more important, questions concerning political
consequences if or when the dominance of religious concepts would disappear.
.
-What
if Christians were to find out that there is no compensation for good behavior
on Earth, no afterlife, no heaven, no hell and, consequently, no last judgment
by God?
.
-What
if Jews were to find out that God never established any laws for self-mutilation,
dress code, nutrition or ritual, did not hold any preference for them,
and did not promise them any land?
.
-What
if Muslims were to find out that there never was an angel to have whispered
into Muhammad’s ear, that God did not demand that apostates be killed or
women veiled, and that there will be no paradise – especially not for suicidal
killers of other humans?
.
-What
if Buddhists were to find out that there is no reincarnation and no Nirvana
as a prize for escapism in monasteries?
.
-Would
the world be better off if all religious hierarchies were to disappear,
together with their dogmas?
.
-Would
not the world still need emotional inspiration, comfort in distress, and
moral direction?Would not people
still need congregations for mutual support and for maintaining a benevolent
direction?
.
-Would
everybody come to realize that we better begin to concentrate on the one
life that we now have, in this world, on this spaceship Earth that we will
never be able to leave in any large numbers?
.
-What
should we read, and what inspiration can we obtain, from the observation
of this world and its evolution to make sense as a direction to pursue?
.
-Would
it not come down to the goals of personal growth, caring service to others
in a global ethic, as in a global family – and joy over the beauty in this
world?
.
-Should
we not be more aware of the many fellow human beings who struggle through
life, who suffer from some of the many human afflictions, who are absorbed
by their compassion for the suffering of a loved one, who are utterly lonely,
who see no use or meaning in their life, or who feel rejected by the world?Should
we not have more time for them and more readily offer a helping hand or
just our presence at their side – when no spiritual force is there to help
them?
.