THOUGHTS ON RELIGION
All that follows is based on my personal belief God exists and that the evolutionary process was created by God. In general I think it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence. I do not exempt religion from this kind of scrutiny. The evidence for the existence of God is the gift of life and natural resources. If one receives a gift there must be a gift giver. But human logic fails me on a crucial question----how can something come from nothing? Ok, God created the evolutionary process, but who then created God? This simply is beyond the pale of human reasoning. I think religion by inheritance is logically absurd. Certainly the Creator of our Universe would choose a more appropriate and efficient means to communicate any commandments for our behavior than via inherited dogma. This is where I start. From here it gets complicated.
Religion has not always been a part of the evolutionary process. Only in the last few hundred thousand years has religion surfaced in this process. There is no evidence that religion is not a part of the evolutionary process, rather instead constitutes a separate creation. I know humans have always made an effort to claim a special personal relationship with God, but all of this seems self serving. The notions that man was created in God's image, that man has dominion over all other species and the natural resources of the planet, that God interferes with His own evolutionary laws via prayer, that God rewards individual humans, on a behavior basis, with a Heavenly thereafter, etc. ------all of these are human notions. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of this is true. Over time many species have come and gone and there has never been any indication God protected any species from the laws of evolution, so any notion that we are suddenly a favored species in the process is hardly based on the past or on logic. If God has any favorites it must be some of the single celled organisms----they are still around after billions of years. You like longevity-----be an amoeba.
Evolution operates via diversity, change, and luck. It is a very rough process on individual members of any species. It is hard to believe God arranged for my arrival by a divine pairing of a particular sperm with a particular egg, thus injecting my being into the living world. Of course I guess anyone can believe anything by definition of belief. YET, beliefs are only as true as the reality and supporting evidence of the beliefs. The questions begged here are these: Does God micromanage the evolutionary process or is it really a self propelled process operating under God created evolutionary laws? Clearly I would like to be able to communicate with God, to have him protect me from all the chance and luck involved in the evolutionary process and to reward me with a Heavenly paradise. Again, there is no evidence God has this kind of relationship with particular humans. We all know the worst of tragedies can befall the best of us. And some of the worst of us seem blessed with good fortune. Accepting that we, each and everyone of us, are bound by the same rules of evolution as all other species is no reason for depression. Our existing is the first of many unearned fortunes. There will be ample number of unearned bad fortunes too. There is way too much babble about "I earned". Forget all that, each of us has some cards to play, and it is up to us to make the best of life we can with our decisions. BUT, the best of decisions can't often enable one to win with a bad hand.
Humans appear to be the first species with the ability to somewhat control our destiny while on this earth. But the key word is somewhat. There is no level playing field, no equal distribution of talent, no genetic fairness, no birth place fairness, no choice of parents, schools, neighborhoods, physical or health fairness, etc. So much for the bullshit about "I earned". There simply can't be equality in the process of evolution for progress to proceed. Each of us, as individuals, are expendable for the sake of future progress of the whole process.
The developed intellectual and emotional sensations in humans is the basis for ethics. Humans have feelings based on a high degree of understanding consequences and how to achieve things for ourselves personally. Without the evolutionary development of ethics barbaric interactions would dominate. They often do anyway. Humans are the first species to possess a clear understanding of fairness. That is our ethics---the Golden Rule---and this is an inherent wiring of our very being. All humans everywhere understand the concept of fairness and this is our human basis for ethics. But we also understand that 'fair is fair' does not often lend itself to acquisition of something we personally want. There is a promotional job opening and we know of ways to grease the path to our getting the job. And so it goes in situation after situation. We understand the Golden Rule but we fudge all the time. We may not kill to get something, but to varying degrees we will manipulate for our own advantage. Not me, of course, but the rest of you should be ashamed.
The next question we need answer is what is a good life? Each of us desires for ourselves a good life. Yet how many of us, at least soon enough in our lives, examine this question carefully? We are busy, very busy, deciding which kind of car to buy, who to marry or date, how to get ahead on the job, how to make more money, etc. We all know some lives which we envy. And we also know many lives which we admire. But these two are not the same. If we envy someone we are really saying they have a good life with the kind of lifestyle which we wish we could have in our lives. Some of those we most admire do not live lives which we envy. More people probably admire Lincoln than any other person in history, BUT no one would wish upon themselves the kind of life Lincoln endured. Many great people live lives of 'hell' so that something really good can be achieved for others. Maybe to live a really good life one needs to have a mixture of the enviable and the admirable.
Religion exists to show us how to live a 'good life' and, in some cases, to give us hope for a 'good life' after death. None of us want to die and so anything which gives us hope for life after death appeals to us. Of course we figure any life after death must be earned, so we create religious commandments to guide us. Many of the religious commandments are based on the Golden Rule, and this is true for all religions. Then comes what I tend to call the silliness----the ornate cathedrals, the endless rituals, prayer, the ceremonies, the clergy, prejudicial dogmas, and on and on it goes. But we worry that maybe we will not pass mustard and will fall short in earning a trip to Heaven. Not to worry, most religions find some way for God to forgive sinners. From an objective overall viewpoint, from a decent distance, one really would question why God would ever get involved in such a petty and revengeful mode of operation. You know, I love my pets, but were I given the chance to devise a system to grant them a really good life I don't think I would have my Son die as a solution, or create some kind of Hell for punishment for their transgressions. This all strikes me as pretty far fetched. I don't know, like probably no one knows whether there is any life after death, but if there is, it just seems the process to get there would be as brilliant as the rest of evolution. I think most people hang on desperately silly beliefs because they just can't bring themselves to follow the Golden Rule. No one ever says the Golden Rule is unethical. No one. But it is sure as hell difficult to follow in all cases. So we do the best we can and depend on forgiveness as an insurance. Thus, much of religion tends to be extremely self serving.
Terminology seems important in any discussion of religion. There are those who believe there is no ethics outside of religion. But practically speaking we all know bad people who are religious and good people who belong to no church or seldom attend if they belong to a church. The vast majority of people, today and all of yesterdays, believe or did believe in God. In this sense humans, by a large majority, are religious. It is not the religious nature of humans which differs, but the kind of organized religious sects which predominate at any time in history or any given area at a given time in history. Today, in America, people still believe in God, but active membership in an organized religious sect is declining. Why? Perhaps religion is having a difficult time changing with the times. Scientific advancements, communication avenues, civil rights, and globalization of societies makes it harder for a lot of sectarian religious dogma to remain creditable. Sectarian religion is trapped by it's own rigidity. To admit any part of dogma is wrong is to bring into question all of the rest of the dogma. Faith based beliefs always carry this sort of difficult baggage. For example, for the Catholic Church to admit there is no ethical reason why women can't be priests, would be to remove the invincibility aura of Church dogma. For any Church to admit some of what is Church law may not be true is to seed thoughts about how much else might be wrong---the old domino theory. So this then forces two camps in most any religious sect---the conservative camp which insists everything is true for evermore, and those who wish to alter dogma to fit the times.
To be religious is to be ethical. Some actions are right, other actions are wrong. After this it gets tricky. Is something right because God approves it or does God approve it because it is right? In other words is there a right and wrong apart from God deciding what is right and wrong? When we seek to do the right thing do we do it because God commands us to do it or does God command us to do it because it is right? But it may be best not to get too tied up with semantics.
If a child doesn't hit another child over the head with a toy because he will be punished is the child being ethical? In other words are actions for reward or punishment really ethical behavior? Perhaps if one was going to award someone for ethical behavior he/she could only be rewarded if he/she behaved in an ethical manner on their own free will. Ethical behavior, in the purest sense, is not something which you only do because of perceived consequences. The Golden Rule stands on it's own with no implied consequences. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' because there is no other way to act in a fair manner towards others. There is no implied reward or punishment. It stands on it's own as the basis of ethics. Some attach some sort of majority rule to their ethics----a good action is one in which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. BUT WAIT! If Charlie has a million dollars and I kill Charlie and give all his money to a hundred people did I do a good deed? By this mantra I have done a good deed. Charlie may be dead but a hundred people are better off. Ethics is not really majority dependent. Let's take an example of a school prom. Is it really ethical to decide which kind of students can attend and what they must wear or with whom they can attend? If 51% want to wear tuxedoes and 49% want to dress in togas where does the ethics lie? If 99% want to wear tuxedoes and 1% want to wear togas, where does the ethics lie? The Golden Rule rarely fails: if I wish to wear what I want to this special occasion (within the limits of obvious decency) then I must grant the same privilege to others. Rules are made to protect others, not to harass others. If I want the right to marry whomever I want (of adult age) then ethics demands that I give that same right to others. And so it goes, case after case. While we worry about who dresses how when or who marries who, we ok people packing guns in public. Clearly guns can be used, deliberately or in a moment of passion, to harm someone else. It is unethical to insist on the right to carry a gun because I feel safer when clearly it decreases the safety of others depending on who the "I" is. We also know that violence breeds violence. We know that. Thus public approval of situations which promote violence are unethical. You don't knowingly set others up for potential harm.
Is religion and ethics the same thing? I think most of those active in a sectarian religious organization would probably say yes. The answer to this depends on whether one considers there to actually be a right and wrong or whether right and wrong is solely by divine command. I happen to believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and that God's evolutionary process has generated such a right and wrong within certain species. In humans I see this inherent understanding of right and wrong via the Golden Rule. Ethics is about right vs wrong. So is much of sectarian religion. BUT, and this is no minor BUT, much of sectarian religion has nothing to do with ethics. The rituals, the ornate cathedrals, prayers, hymns, social gatherings, religious titles, choirs, etc. have nothing to do with ethics. A person could do the right things ethically and never be engaged in any of the latter. Sectarian religion often involves sacrifices of some sort. Lent, animal sacrifices, and even human sacrifices have been employed as part of sectarian religious practices. Even Christianity in which Jesus died to save us from our sins is a form of sacrifice. To me, this gets a bit too weird. If your child misbehaves you would never decide to kill his mother or anyone else in order for the child to be forgiven. It makes sense that if someone follows the teachings of Christ they then earn admittance to Heaven. Heaven then is a reward for doing the right thing. HOWEVER, hardly any Christian follows the teachings of Jesus to the letter, even less the teachings of the Old Testament. No one is going to stone their kids for misbehavior or believe if someone has sex with an animal the animal needs to be killed, etc. There are an awful lot of plain outdated practices in the Bible. When Jesus says it would be easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of needle than get to Heaven, how many take this serious? When Jesus said go and give what you have to the poor, how many are going to actually do this? So what serves as the escape clause? I guess first, Jesus died on the Cross so your sins will be forgiven, and all the rituals and prayers and hymns and group gatherings will serve again as an alternate ticket to Heaven. I personally don't buy into this kind of playing with 'mirrors' as a trip to Heaven. If there is a Heaven then how often one does the right vs the wrong (ethics) will be the determinate factor.
There is no doubt that religious faith gives a lot a people hope and relief from daily stresses. I suppose the broader question is whether or not religious beliefs have produced more good than harm over history. Considered solely in terms of war, persecution, discrimination, and oppression the track record is not good. But, if one believes the only ticket to Heaven is via a particular religious sect, then every soul 'saved' is obviously a good thing, a plus. But if missionary work itself is a good, then where in history has this good manifested itself? Did the missionaries to the American Indians open the doors for Indians to have a good life? In some sense they just managed to get Indians to trust the intentions of white people. Did the missionaries to Africa accomplish anything in Africa? Hard to see much good from their work. Wherever they managed to get certain tribes to adopt Christianity we find more often instead, even today, brutal wars of genocide occurring over the religious differences. To me this confirms that it is ethics, not sectarian beliefs, which create a better world for human societies. To some extent both sectarian religiousness and national patriotism have both contributed to unethical behaviors. The Jews in Germany and the Vietnamese in Vietnam are both populations which lost 2 million people because of religious or national patriotism. This kind of list, if accurately made, would be a long one. Stronger military nations, without exception, have always used religion, and/or ethnicity, and/or patriotism to exploit other weaker nations.
Ethics based on the Golden Rule does away with bias based on religion, ethnicity, and national patriotism. If we are saddled with a global economy and community, like it or not, then clearly the age of national patriotism has to end. Patriotism, by definition, generates conflict. The major problems now are pretty much all global, just another reason why effective ethics has to go global irrespective of ethnicity, sectarian religions, or nations. How does ethics deal with the core global problem of overpopulation? Human population density affects every species on the planet, animal or plant. It affects the supply of many natural resources. Overpopulation may well be the most important ethical problem of our time. What humans all seek is a quality of life. Life itself, in the evolutionary process, has never been at stake. For millions of years DNA has been rearranging itself to generate species which can survive in the current environment. Species come and go but life itself has always remained. If humans seek a high quality of life for all humans---the only ethical goal---THEN there absolutely has to be responsible reproduction, protection of other species, and protection of our natural resources. The current obsession with abortion is so nearsighted as to be absurd. Children purposely born into an environment in which they cannot be properly cared for is ethically indefensible. The same people who scream about the ghetto mother who opts to abort, show zero such concern about the child after birth. And even less concern about the future quality of human life. We cull the herds of animal populations, we neuter pets etc. We do the ethical thing with overpopulation with every species except our own. Then we get moronic and silly and drag out ancient scripture which instructs us to go and populate the earth. We did that centuries ago.
Can there be such a thing as right and wrong if there is no reward or punishment? Probably not. Does that mean for ethics to exist there must be a Heaven? Not necessarily. The possibility of Heaven is beyond evidential proof. It therefore exists only as a faith based concept. Perhaps the answer is irrelevant. There may or may not be life after death. It is possible that the reward for right behavior is an earthly reward in the form of personal contentment. Those who have reflected much at all on the pursuit of money, titles, power, sex, or popularity realize none of these bring any real contentment. When these become goals enough is never enough---and in the terminational years none of these parameters of life generate contentment. The Golden Rule, the basis of ethics, is seeped in empathy for others. Nothing breeds contentment like empathy and sharing good fortune with those having less good fortune. Find those with good doses of empathy, and sharing with the less fortunate, and you will have found considerable contentment. If Heaven follows for these people so be it. If there is no Heaven they have reaped in this life what we all seek----contentment.
