The Atheist and Religion ...Are You Missing the Point ?
- From: jak1949@xxxxxxxxx (Jack McKinney)
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:15:57 -0600
So What Is Religion
* * * * *
Religion in general, is the outward manifestation of inner spiritual
knowledge: Seth ... I want it understood that the accomplishment is
breathtaking in its grandeur -- more so because man formed from his
psyche such a multidimensional spiritual drama(Christianity) that its
light struck upon this or that person, this or that place, and formed a
story more powerful than any physical event could be -- hence its power.
In those terms, however, again, the gods of Olympus were as real, for
all of men's riches are representations, psychic dramatizations,
standing for an inner reality that cannot be literally expressed or
described -- but can be creatively expressed or represented.
* * * * *
Some Thoughts on What We Call Real
By Hubertus Fremerey -- Atheists always are struggling with theists
about the question whether God is 'real'. When the Sputnik was launched
into its orbit, some communist papers jeered that 'it hasn't found God
It seems quite natural that we should not have our world peopled with
'things that are not real'. This very probably includes unicorns and the
Yeti and Bigfoot and witches and many other 'things' ? and maybe even
God. This would be a clean and orderly and reliable world, not that of
Shakespeare or the Middle Ages, which was full of strange creatures.
Well, but is 'Oedipus Complex' a 'real' thing? Or 'class struggle'? Some
people would fiercely defend them both, even as atheists. But they both
may be as imaginary and fanciful as any God. And what about the rainbow?
You cannot bag it in. It's only in the eye of the beholder. Should we
call this 'real'? But the rainbow is at least not purely imaginary, but
is a beautiful pattern of 'real' rays of light broken in the tiny
raindrops. In a similar way, 'Oedipus Complex' and 'class struggle' may
be 'real' effects broken in some theories. Thus to dismiss 'Oedipus
Complex' and 'class struggle' altogether as 'irreal' would screen some
true insight from our awareness. Could it be that removing God from our
awareness would be a mistake of a similar sort? I think so.
While I am a sceptic and a '95% naturalist' myself, if I had the option
to remove religion from the earth I would not do it. There are problems
concerning our human existence in this world that we should be sensitive
to, and to sharpen our awareness religion in any 'advanced' form (as
compared to mere magic and superstition) may be as essential as is good
literature or a good work of art or good music. The world of humans is
too complicated by far to be left to the 'dumb scientists'. Why do we
read novels or go to the cinema and the theater or attend a talk show or
exchange with friends?
Because we want to sharpen our awareness of 'things humane'. We need to
see all these human dramas and tragedies and comedies to keep our
understanding of what it means to be a human in this world alive and
sensitive. The main function of religion is not to explain the world. To
think that is an example of what I call 'common nonsense'. To explain
the world in a preliminary and pre-scientific way is only one and a
minor function of religion. The central function of religion is to give
meaning and perspective to our situation in the world, to establish
values and goals by which to get orientation for our plans and deeds.
This sort of orientation science cannot provide. But since humans are
not only thinking ('homo sapiens') but much more 'acting' and 'creative'
animals ? and not only re-acting ones ? they have to know why they
should act this way and not that way and what to defend and go for. No
science will tell them. We overestimate homo sapiens and underestimate
homo creator, the creative human seeking solutions to problems which are
neither practical nor technical nor scientific. Morality does tell us in
certain cases, but morality is not scientific, it's value ridden. And
most of our actions are not even moral actions in the first place. To
build a house or a family or to do a work of art is not a moral act, but
those are activities we can love or leave, no science will tell us, and
no morality either. But religion may do. Well, religion may not tell us
whether to build a house or a family, but perhaps may tell us to become
a monk or nun. Would this be bad? By what standard? Who decides?
Religion shows us some aspects of 'reality' which science does not know
of and which 'common sense' does not know of either. Whatever we may
think of the value of Christendom or Islam, the fact is: Both have
transformed the world of humankind in a very important way. Our
Occidental culture would be very different from what it is today without
this strange rabbi Jesus, whoever he may have been. In the same way the
world of Asia and Africa would be very different from what it is today
without the impact of Muhammad. Same with South East and East Asia
without the impact of the Buddha. Neither the Buddha nor Jesus nor
Muhammad even tried to explain something which science would explain
better some day. To explain the physical nature of the world was never
the concern of these 'religious founding fathers'. Thus to prove them
wrong on scientific grounds is just missing the point. This of course
may be read the other way round too: To attack scientific findings by
religious arguments is missing the point likewise. As was said above: To
explain the physical nature of the world at no time was the main concern
of any great religion. Thus neither Darwinism nor Marxism nor
Freudianism nor the theories of Einstein are in contradiction with true
Christian or Islamic or Buddhist convictions. But they may be
contradicting vested interests of those who claim to be 'the faithful'.
And one more remark on 'reality'. Not only is the rainbow in the eye of
the beholder, not only beauty, but so are freedom and justice and
progress and 'the good': Should we skip them all because they are not
jumping around on a meadow like horses? No, they are guiding ideas of
utmost importance, even while they are not 'real' in the sense an atom
is. We all have to do some ontology then and now and accept that the
question of what 'reality' means can be very difficult. Our modern
scientific approach tends to dismiss everything which seems not
'methodologically sound'. But images and symbols and 'theory generated
concepts' like 'Oedipus Complex' and 'class struggle' all show some
important aspects of reality that are missed by scientific methodology.
The world of humans is not the world of the physical labs. The world of
humans is what Dante in the opening sentences of the 'Inferno' (1st part
of Divina Commedia) depicted as 'a dark wood', a symbol standing for
error and sin and confusion where we get lost until some 'light shineth
in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not'. (John 1,5) The
'Pilgrims Progress' from Inferno through Purgatorio to Paradiso is
something no science would ever have suggested, but it is something very
characteristic of the human striving for the good, for getting out of
the dark wood and its many fearful dangers that life is, to something
where light and clarity and eternal peace abound. Et lux aeterna luceat
eis (Let eternal light shine upon them). You cannot approach the
Christian requiem (see
http://members.chello.se/hansdotter/requiem.html) or mass with physical
or logical devices. It would be meaningless. <p>
This text is not science, this is not even Antiquity, but it is what
made up the Occidental tradition (think of the masses of Bach, Mozart,
Beethoven, Schubert and many others) and one of the great visions of
humankind and of human self-understanding and of understanding the world
we live in. Should we call it 'real'? Who decides? By what standard?
It's not all physics and math and 'common sense'. But it's all human.
It's about the greatness of human humility. And by this it's even far
above Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Man is not that simple an animal.