The True Nature of Religions
| The True Nature of Religions | |
Myth and Evolution
Sin and Punishment
Atheism
Evil
About 13 billion years after the Beginning of Time, on a planet circling the third orbital level of a G2-type star in the outer reaches of a large spiral galaxy an aggressive, intelligent animal evolved.
From the dawn of its awakening on, the race developed a set of myths, all of
which were meant to answer their foremost questions:
Myths are by far the most detrimental products of human thought.
All of them emanate from man's fear of personal death and even of life.
They were also meant to create manipulating father-figures, who were similar to and thus, understandable by common people.
For the purpose of this essay, let us define religion as the belief in a mystical, antropomorphous being, that not only created the Cosmos, but also takes influence on every human individual on the planet.
Most religions have brought little fulfillment to mankind. However, their toll of horrible suffering through wars, witch-hunts, mutilation and suppression is staggering. Be it by ardent belief in god or, as a pretext, atrocities abound. Religions have not fulfilled any of their promises, i.e. to answer the prime questions of existance which were the main reasons why religions were formulated through the ages in the first place.
Most religions practise extortion by threat of punishment and promise of reward in an afterlife. As most of them claim to represent the exclusive truth, punishment is a means of forcing their faith on everyone else.
In some of the old scripts, punishment has been invoked as the consequence
to deviations from the righteous path. Inherent rigidity has caused them to overlook that many deviations of the past are considered irrelevant today, while new ones have become vital issues.
On the other hand, none of the major religions are threatening post-mortal punishment for the capital crime of taking a fellow creature's life. Some religions deny that other animals have a soul. Whatever the definition of "soul", the difference can only be quantitative, not qualitative. What is to prevent the taking of lives? History shows that killing is considered instrumental to the propagation of conventional religions.
Show me a religion that threatens punishment for poaching rare animals in
their remaining reserves, leading to final extinction - and I shall gladly subscribe
to their belief.
Show me a group of believers that foresee punishment for destroying the environment - and I shall be among the first to join their ranks.
Show me a faith that threatens punishment for anyone contributing to the plundering of our planet's resources - and I shall be its advocate.
But conventional religions put human values so far above those of other unique creations of god, that making "inferior creatures" disappear from the face of our planet is not punishable.
On the contrary:
One of them (Christianity) even has their god order the mismanagement of
our fellow creatures. (Genesis 22)
There is no gradual adjustment to a changing human society in any religion.
Inherent rigidity precludes any adaptation of their holy scripts.
There lies the primary difference between striving to understand the world with the help of science and by following the scriptures of religion:
Science will readily admit errors or expand/supplant a theory with a new one, if experiments have provided new evidence.
Religions pretend to be above all that; just believe and you will be saved.
Invariably, god - whatever the name given to the creator - is seen as a humanoid being of the male sex.
If you find something is wrong within the macho structure of religious
beliefs ...
Should anyone not subscribing to the Great Traditional Religions be called an atheist?
If this is indeed the definition, I would suggest revising the terminology.
Fat-bellied philosophers, misogynist prophets, bearded fathers, are no more than projections of historic human behaviour into a time that leaves our race far behind in its petty self-overestimation.
If there is a superior being responsible for the creation of this incredible
universe that surrounds us, then it certainly must be further removed from
the gods of our antiquated human-centred religions than an amoeba is from
Albert Einstein.
Religious belief should be a private matter indeed.
A person must be allowed to believe or disbelieve that there is an unexplained principle behind all the intricate cycles of the cosmos.
I myself feel revolted at being called an atheist, just because my concept of a creator is not that of a living being in human form.
The truth behind the nature of god may well remain forever hidden from our minds.
I am quite comfortable with that uncertainty.
At present, the sciences of cosmology, physics and biology provide the nearest approach to the mystery of an undefined prime mover.
I like the view of astronomer Fred Hoyle ("Home is where the Wind Blows", 1994, p. 421):
"Religions with an all powerful god make no sense unless you believe that god is pretty evil, or at least wholly indifferent to bad things that happen.
"If you believe in an all-powerful God, you have to ascribe to God a morality inferior to that of humans, which is quite a measure of condemnation.
"But the real point is that God is not all-powerful, God cannot overcome the evils of decay because the issue is not one that is open to choice. *) - If you have the Universe, then you must have decay. If you have no decay, you have no Universe. Take your pick."
*) I think Professor Hoyle is referring to the second law of thermodynamics.
Can there be a devil?
Yes, we can. He comes in the form of various humans. There is a little of him in most of us. Call him "Mr. Hyde", if you prefer. He has little to do with the creator of the universe, but much with the error of evolution that is man.
Humans, having eliminated all the natural control mechanisms over its runaway multiplication, have become the most destructive species ever seen on this planet.
How can you doubt the existance of the devil, when there walked the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Idi Amins and Pol Pots on this planet? However, they all were and still are, "human", not fallen angels.
Back to Home Page