To religious people this analysis may seem inappropriate: one doesn’t analyse God’s existence, all you must do with respect to Him is worshipping and praying. Nevertheless I ask for understanding if I make a miserable attempt, not being a theologian or philosopher. I know He will allow me to do so.
1. Humans are the only creatures that we know of who are able to conceive the existence of a Supreme Being, or a Higher Principle. The reason for this is that only humans can think in an abstractive way, they are able to imagine situations not associated to the immediate visible and touchable. At the same time, the human species is also eager to know cause-and effect-relationships, if they can’t find one and the outcome is very relevant for their existence, then they tend to ascribe the capability to influence it to God or to gods. This is the rational explanation why people tend to believe in God.
2. Next to the rational explanation there is also an emotional or spiritual one. People feel that they are part of the incomprehensible Nature, that blesses them with gifts but also threatens them with disasters. They also feel dependent upon one another in the same tribe or family and follow its prescribed rules. The rules always serve two things: 1. Harmony with Nature or at least protection against its whims an 2. Harmony among people within the tribe.
3. During history of mankind, in all societies and cultures, men have always been convinced of the existence of Something Supernatural that determines the course of things. It started with ghosts, located in mountains, trees, rivers etc., or in animals. Then stories, whole series of myths were told and recorded about man-shaped figures who were gods, mostly with their areas of authority. The ghosts were sometimes also detached from their rivers and mountains and became invisible “powers” with special priests or shamans who were capable to influence their acting. Mostly the ghost-gods demanded sacrifices, food and drinks up to human lives, in exchange for a prosperous course of things. What we call “praying” didn’t seem to exist, only mediating by shamans and sacrificing.
4. Zoroaster in ancient Persia, and Achnaton in ancient Egypt, both around 1,200 BC, introduced the concept of One God. On an unknown time the One-God concept was also adhered to by the Israelites. Zoroaster and Achnaton located and/or symbolised their One God in/by the sun, the Israelites abstracted Him from any visible object. Their God is still worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and some small religions derived from these three.
5. In modern times the existence of God (let alone gods) is challenged by many people. People are able to deny His existence publicly without fear of being punished, which was unthinkable in times in which people were scared of God’s wrath if they would leave blasphemies unpunished. The God-believers mostly tend to believe that God Himself is capable enough to punish whoever en whenever He finds it needed. In Western countries, the non-believers have an equal social status as the believers.
6. Nowadays, when (1) the cause-and-effect need in human knowledge claims a natural cause for everything, even if it’s not discovered yet, and (2) individualism is considered a great good and, by consequence, people feel (far) less dependent upon each other, God’s existence is far more questioned than it ever has been in history. This leads to the following statements by believers and non-believers:
A. There is nothing that indicates the existence of a God, everything is explainable by discovered and yet to be discovered, laws of logic and nature. So there is no God.
I find this statement a contradictio in terminis, it speaks against itself. Karl Popper, the founder of modern scientific methodology stated that scientific conclusions have to be falsifiable, that is testable in such a way that the opposite or denial of what is concluded, can be confirmed. Concluding that there is no cause, because up to now that cause has not been discovered, is unscientific in this sense.
B. If there would be a God, then He would never have allowed the miserable things we see around us (diseases, disasters, poverty, cruelty, etc.). So there is no God.
First, this doesn’t match with the phenomenon that the more prosperous people are, the more they tend to use this argument, and the more misery people suffer, the more religious they are. (This lead Marx to his conclusion that religion is the opium of people, thinking that people were mislead). Second, it pre-supposes a human knowledge of “how God is” and how He would “have to” act according to human standards. Which is contrary to the concept of God. One of the next postings more about this.
C. My religion is the only true religion, and superior to all others.
Religions always claim to be “for all people”, and people who refuse to adopt a religion, are offenders of God in this conception. E.g. Luther denied the “onlyness” of the Roman Catholic Faith by creating another religion (he himself saw it as returning to it, not creating). After strong attempts to convert the Jews to Christianity, he became a Jew-hater, using the argument that they had crucified Christ. Nowadays we must admit that God apparently allows other religions’ existence next to the only true religion which is yours. I think we must not see this as “allowing” but as “human variations”: if you find the Koran your only guiding principle, then it’s that for you, but this doesn’t make Christianity inferior, even if you think the Koran says so. This is also the case with the Bible. E.g. Jesus says: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Everyone who doesn’t follow Me, is against Me”. I’m convinced that a sincere and integer Muslim is also a follower of Jesus in this sense, just like a pious Christian is a Muslim in the sense of the Koran. One can’t come to another conclusion if peace and harmony is to be kept. Rejection of religion is no option, also not from a political and sociological viewpoint.
D. What I believe is in the Holy Book that God gave to mankind, and I (have to) follow its instructions
Humans are enabled by their senses, but also restricted by them. A philosophical proverb says: “the Word is given to him/her who already posses it”. What does this mean? According to me it says that you have to own the words you read in the Holy Book, before you can understand them. All learning is based on this concept, that knowledge has to be based on preceding knowledge, to which the new knowledge is only a further clarification. This is the way humans are, and must consequently also be applied to Holy Books. G.E. Lessing compares absorbing Gods’ instructions as simple commandments from a sergeant or from a parent “because I say so” with small children’s behaviour. (in his “Education of Mankind”). This doesn’t mean that we should give our own interpretation to the Holy Book just as we like it, what it means is that we have to investigate its content, constantly seeking to what is meant by the Words. If we possess the Word, then we will understand. Jesus said: “whoever has ears to hear, let him hear”, clearly referring to the human senses.
A peculiar thing about man’s conception of God is that so many people take for granted that they know Who and/or What He is. Only the Jews explicitly let Him be a Mystery, which doesn’t mean they diminish His Divinity, on the contrary. One of the next postings I will proceed my analysis by exploring more on this question.
1. Humans are the only creatures that we know of who are able to conceive the existence of a Supreme Being, or a Higher Principle. The reason for this is that only humans can think in an abstractive way, they are able to imagine situations not associated to the immediate visible and touchable. At the same time, the human species is also eager to know cause-and effect-relationships, if they can’t find one and the outcome is very relevant for their existence, then they tend to ascribe the capability to influence it to God or to gods. This is the rational explanation why people tend to believe in God.
2. Next to the rational explanation there is also an emotional or spiritual one. People feel that they are part of the incomprehensible Nature, that blesses them with gifts but also threatens them with disasters. They also feel dependent upon one another in the same tribe or family and follow its prescribed rules. The rules always serve two things: 1. Harmony with Nature or at least protection against its whims an 2. Harmony among people within the tribe.
3. During history of mankind, in all societies and cultures, men have always been convinced of the existence of Something Supernatural that determines the course of things. It started with ghosts, located in mountains, trees, rivers etc., or in animals. Then stories, whole series of myths were told and recorded about man-shaped figures who were gods, mostly with their areas of authority. The ghosts were sometimes also detached from their rivers and mountains and became invisible “powers” with special priests or shamans who were capable to influence their acting. Mostly the ghost-gods demanded sacrifices, food and drinks up to human lives, in exchange for a prosperous course of things. What we call “praying” didn’t seem to exist, only mediating by shamans and sacrificing.
4. Zoroaster in ancient Persia, and Achnaton in ancient Egypt, both around 1,200 BC, introduced the concept of One God. On an unknown time the One-God concept was also adhered to by the Israelites. Zoroaster and Achnaton located and/or symbolised their One God in/by the sun, the Israelites abstracted Him from any visible object. Their God is still worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and some small religions derived from these three.
5. In modern times the existence of God (let alone gods) is challenged by many people. People are able to deny His existence publicly without fear of being punished, which was unthinkable in times in which people were scared of God’s wrath if they would leave blasphemies unpunished. The God-believers mostly tend to believe that God Himself is capable enough to punish whoever en whenever He finds it needed. In Western countries, the non-believers have an equal social status as the believers.
6. Nowadays, when (1) the cause-and-effect need in human knowledge claims a natural cause for everything, even if it’s not discovered yet, and (2) individualism is considered a great good and, by consequence, people feel (far) less dependent upon each other, God’s existence is far more questioned than it ever has been in history. This leads to the following statements by believers and non-believers:
A. There is nothing that indicates the existence of a God, everything is explainable by discovered and yet to be discovered, laws of logic and nature. So there is no God.
I find this statement a contradictio in terminis, it speaks against itself. Karl Popper, the founder of modern scientific methodology stated that scientific conclusions have to be falsifiable, that is testable in such a way that the opposite or denial of what is concluded, can be confirmed. Concluding that there is no cause, because up to now that cause has not been discovered, is unscientific in this sense.
B. If there would be a God, then He would never have allowed the miserable things we see around us (diseases, disasters, poverty, cruelty, etc.). So there is no God.
First, this doesn’t match with the phenomenon that the more prosperous people are, the more they tend to use this argument, and the more misery people suffer, the more religious they are. (This lead Marx to his conclusion that religion is the opium of people, thinking that people were mislead). Second, it pre-supposes a human knowledge of “how God is” and how He would “have to” act according to human standards. Which is contrary to the concept of God. One of the next postings more about this.
C. My religion is the only true religion, and superior to all others.
Religions always claim to be “for all people”, and people who refuse to adopt a religion, are offenders of God in this conception. E.g. Luther denied the “onlyness” of the Roman Catholic Faith by creating another religion (he himself saw it as returning to it, not creating). After strong attempts to convert the Jews to Christianity, he became a Jew-hater, using the argument that they had crucified Christ. Nowadays we must admit that God apparently allows other religions’ existence next to the only true religion which is yours. I think we must not see this as “allowing” but as “human variations”: if you find the Koran your only guiding principle, then it’s that for you, but this doesn’t make Christianity inferior, even if you think the Koran says so. This is also the case with the Bible. E.g. Jesus says: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Everyone who doesn’t follow Me, is against Me”. I’m convinced that a sincere and integer Muslim is also a follower of Jesus in this sense, just like a pious Christian is a Muslim in the sense of the Koran. One can’t come to another conclusion if peace and harmony is to be kept. Rejection of religion is no option, also not from a political and sociological viewpoint.
D. What I believe is in the Holy Book that God gave to mankind, and I (have to) follow its instructions
Humans are enabled by their senses, but also restricted by them. A philosophical proverb says: “the Word is given to him/her who already posses it”. What does this mean? According to me it says that you have to own the words you read in the Holy Book, before you can understand them. All learning is based on this concept, that knowledge has to be based on preceding knowledge, to which the new knowledge is only a further clarification. This is the way humans are, and must consequently also be applied to Holy Books. G.E. Lessing compares absorbing Gods’ instructions as simple commandments from a sergeant or from a parent “because I say so” with small children’s behaviour. (in his “Education of Mankind”). This doesn’t mean that we should give our own interpretation to the Holy Book just as we like it, what it means is that we have to investigate its content, constantly seeking to what is meant by the Words. If we possess the Word, then we will understand. Jesus said: “whoever has ears to hear, let him hear”, clearly referring to the human senses.
A peculiar thing about man’s conception of God is that so many people take for granted that they know Who and/or What He is. Only the Jews explicitly let Him be a Mystery, which doesn’t mean they diminish His Divinity, on the contrary. One of the next postings I will proceed my analysis by exploring more on this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment