(5)
3. Comments Regarding the
Phenomenon of ”Religion”
The above presentation leads to the question how
religions originate, are maintained, and elaborated in human thought, as well
as possibly also in the thought of other “conscious” beings in the universe.
One has to consider three important components in this context:
* The search of humans to
explain observed phenomena through findings of causality.
* The capability of the human
brain for thought visualizations (concepts or images appearing in the mind independent
of sensory perceptions – in the course of thoughts and in dreams developed,
changed, and expanded). These
visualizations can be mentally processed and expanded as in a virtual
reality and, at times, be equated to reality. [1]
* The tendency of most humans
to hold on to a once-accepted system of concepts.
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 and a spiritual next
world.
The first statement
leads to the explaining of special natural and mental phenomena by means of
causing forces to which, consequently, a reality has to be accorded.
The capability to
establish and enhance thought visualizations lets vague ideas or weak
perceptions – as, for example, a breeze of air, a shadow, or an effect of light
– develop into concepts of spiritual beings.
A continued expansion of such concepts leads to almost any concepts of
gods, as they appear in the religions of various cultures. Increasing philosophical thought and
observation of life and nature lead to higher religions – that still remain
virtual realities.
Therefore,
religiosity must be expected in all human cultures. In other words, religiosity does not occur
naturally by itself, but necessarily in consequence of the capability for
visualizations in the course of human thought, as a virtual reality in the
minds of humans.
Once the virtual
reality has found a certain inner coherence and becomes part of cultural
tradition, even increasing contradictions with better insights into actual
reality at first do not bring changes of religious concepts or philosophical
dogma. The reason may be a defense
against loss of mental security or destabilization of cultural coherence,
especially since contradictory insights initially don’t offer new, internally
coherent systems of thought. The
defense of the habitual religion or the habitual system of thought occurs
mainly through selective observation or formation of personal
preferences and priorities. Thereby,
each religion finds enough observations that justify its continued existence
and people define what they consider as the most important argument.
Additionally, the
administrators of these religions – the priests – do not want to lose their
positions; nor do the simple people want to lose the traditions they are
endeared to – that provide security – in case of Christianity, even the hope
for a much better existence in a next world.
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.
Human religious
thought went already once through a big step of abstraction when the animist polytheism
was displaced by the faith in only one God in heaven. The quiet springs in nature did not harbor
nymphs any longer, 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? The diverse Christian
cults of saints and the adoration of Mary, with numerous chapels and places of
pilgrimage where absolution could be obtained, were a substitute that did
people good.
Now, the necessity for
another step arises – for a theology that does not only explain human life and
sees the world in human dimensions (as Christian theology mainly focuses on),
but to a theology that also includes the greatness and the dynamic character of
the universe, that knows about the origin but also about the vanishing of many
billions of galaxies and that puts us humans in our place therein. Such recognition leads to further abstraction
of our view of the transcendental force of Creation and our existence and, therewith,
also leads to the heavily counting loss of a faith in a much humanized,
“personal” God-“Father” who walks hand-in-hand with us through life.
But one should not thoughtlessly take away the all
too human concepts from those here on Earth, who find therein a very
significant comfort and ultimate support in their often so very difficult
lives. Because, where, after all, can we
go when suffering severe strokes of fate or in caring compassion? Some aspects of Christian faith are among the
most touching, supportive, and challenging visualizations of human development
in thought and emotions – arising out of the potential of our nature that was
given to us by Creation – and providing some direction for our real lives.
On the other hand, one should gladly get rid of
those abuses of religion that where such a burden to mankind throughout history
and still are in our time.
We actually need four levels of human faith:
o The old cult of offering
sacrifices and giving thanks to the forces of nature and of destiny in a simple
way – for those who live close to nature and for the simple of mind.
o The strict faith in moral
laws and a divine judgment – for our urban societies as they become wealth-,
power-, and pleasure-oriented.
o The faith in humanly
addressable forces of destiny, in forgiveness, love, and a merciful
“God-Father” – for all who struggle in life, who search, and must often suffer
so much, also in compassion – and also for the gratefully joyful ones.
o The abstract view of the
grandiose, dynamic universe and of the uniqueness of the consciously thinking,
sensing, and acting living beings therein – with the need for active and
responsible struggle in life, but also with the possibility of personal
development and service to others, with responsibility for the environment
entrusted to them, with joy in observing Creation, and with acceptance of the
unavoidable.
Each of these forms of religiosity is justified by,
or based on, a personal, individual observation of Creation and human
life:
* The basic religions are
based on a view of a divinely enlivened Creation close to nature – as in the
old religions of all agricultural people who prayed for harvest – with the
exception of the degeneration of certain sacrifice and ritual cults that
historically developed out of them. The
more modern, romantic love of a harmonious nature at the root of our natural
being and longing for peace therein is an extension of this old religion, based
on human need and selective observation.
* The religions focused on
divine laws are justified by the need for a higher foundation of those laws
beyond arbitrary change and interpretation in our selfish and materialistic
urban societies – if not leading to obsession with the exaggerated observation
of spurious laws.
* Faith in a God-Father is
based on the emotions as given to us by nature and on our values that search in
the originating force of Creation for their own origin, their lively resonance,
and, emotionally, for personal help in fate – if not historically exaggerated
in a fixation on human guilt and paralyzed by intellectual, stubborn, narrow
doctrine, ritual, and priestly hierarchies.
* The abstract view is based
on the view of a transcendental foundation of the originating, evolving, and
vanishing Creation, its structure by the laws of nature and its dimensions of
freedom, as well as on the recognition of the limitations of humans, but also
their unique opportunities and responsibilities in the fulfillment of their
lives and participation in their surrounding world – if not degenerated into
moral instability and emptiness of the soul.
Ultimately, there should be no difference between
science and religion or theology.
There can be no dominant position of science where
there is no factual knowledge. Science
is well advised not to overly intellectualize matters of human emotions and
sensibility for beauty. The reduction of
human emotions and sensibility for beauty to utilitarianism has obvious limits
as shown by experience with the unrestrained exclusivity of such an approach. Their reduction to a level of scientific
understanding is not always a justification for prescriptive formulations.
There can be no dominant position for theological
doctrine where there is no knowledge.
Theology and religious thought are well advised not to overly mystify
matters that can be addressed rationally.
There are obvious limits for the assumption of rigid positions or
dictating behavior on the basis of beliefs as shown by experience with the
unrestrained exclusivity of such an approach.
The elevation of specific religious thought by some believers to a
presumed level of divine will is not a justification for the setting of
generally binding, global doctrine.
There will always be plenty of room for differences
of view between the scientific search or methodological limitations and the
theological speculation or religious fervor.
Careful restraint in such areas of contradiction and humbly projected
expectations should be a base for dialog.
After all, there is still the political sphere of thought,
legislation, behavior, and arbitration – as in assessing the rights between
individuals, societies, or nations – where neither science nor religion should
attempt to be the controlling force – at best, plain ethical thought and
practical experience can suggest solutions.
[1] The
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
that they heard about. A more life-like
development of visualizations occurs to writers of fiction novels. They often experience how characters in such
fictions take on “a life of their own”.
These characters can develop their personality, go through experiences
of their fictitious life, and make decision leading to consequences. It is not uncommon that people – and not only
children – believe in stories, which they invented (visualized) themselves,
when their ideas were very intense, when they were important to them, or after
telling or hearing them often enough.
This can be observed in all historic religions and ideologies, even in
our own time in political systems with exaggerated personality worship of their
leaders.