Spirituality, Religion, Nature

 

 

 

New Horizons

 

Does Religion Make a Distortion of Human Life? - Science and a Sense of God

 

 

There is no reasonable justification in the 21st century to continue believing in an interventionist “God,” which is a wrong interpretation of God created by men, probably in good faith, but as a fruit of their ignorance. This fact, painful perhaps for religious people, cannot be denied. The traditional God of theism and of religions lacks any scientific base; it is a “God” of fantasy that does not have real meaning in human life other than in the imagination of the believers.

 

Should then any idea of God be abolished? Not at all! The concept of a Principle or First Cause of the universe is and will always be reasonable, something that science can neither deny nor explain. I understand that atheists and many scientists exclude the name God as a matter of principle, but that doesn’t change this fact: names do not have an intrinsic meaning; they’re conventional, men’s creation, and mean what men want them to mean.

 

What even atheists and men of science cannot deny is that there must be something that explains the existence of the universe. If to explain the existence of the universe the premise is rejected—as the atheists say—of one Principle without Principle or of an uncaused First Cause because there are not empirical proofs of its existence; with much more reason the premise that there were some physical phenomena produced by themselves, without cause, is unacceptable since there are not empirical proofs to support them. This would be the equivalent of saying that one Principle alone is not acceptable, but many principles would be acceptable, which is a plain contradiction.

 

If you are an atheist, you may explain the origin of the world by a theory that in your judgment is most reasonable and scientifically acceptable; each scientific theory may have some probability of being true, and nobody could prove the opposite. But any theory of the origin of the universe must include an explanation of the how and why existence was produced. If the theory does not explain the reason of its existence, that theory would be lame.

 

This reason of the how or why existence or the universe was produced could be called by any name, or no name at all; but even that unnamed something must explain its existence. And since there shouldn’t be any prejudice about a word or a name (because in names what counts is their meaning, not the typographical word); this “something” may be called God; not indeed a creationist God, but the Principle of the universe. (I agree that the word “God” has ordinarily an inadmissible connotation.)

 

I devoted the ninety years my life to find the meaning or purpose of human life, and to live for that purpose. However, how many false “meanings” I have found in my life!  Worse, the infused religious beliefs since I was a child distorted the real meaning and value of human life. What a pity that what has been called sanctum, or sacrum, or eternal, is no other than a delusion of reality! To despise and contemn the precious moments of this life for the illusion of an eternal life and blessedness that does not exist, when the only real blessedness (if there is one that might be called that name, at least for many) is here and now!

 

The religious concept of an eternal life is by itself “dehumanizing” because it twists the true sense of human life, transferring it into a false and non-existent hope, and depriving it of its true meaning. Under this belief the facts of human life lose their real significance, presumably acquiring an eternal dimension. Deceived believers live with a hope that does not exist. The whole meaning of human life is distorted and lost.

 

I am aware that even the most moderate and liberal believers will be amazed by these ideas and language, but how can we ignore reality? If these comments would help a young man, or woman, to find the real meaning for their lives, all my efforts would be worthwhile, and my time would have been well expended. Their accomplishments would be sufficient gratification for me.

 

I am not going to deny that in some instances religious beliefs have produced heroic lives (remember Mother Theresa), and men and women with high ethics and morals, or a profound social or humanitarian sense; but in the name of religion many crimes have been perpetrated also, and in the name of religion fanaticis continue committing crimes against humanity. Religious beliefs continue making the life of many people miserable, as when they are afraid of sin or hell. However, the point regarding religion is not if the religious myth produces some effects, but if religion by itself has some validity.

 

I do not want to spend the rest of my life complaining about a past that I cannot change; I’d rather do something positive sharing my findings and conclusions with you. In the reflections of this page of the internet I’ll present a kind of compendium or synthesis of my “discoveries.” But before I do, let me share a fortunate coincidence regarding my writings, with the teachings of the famous philosopher of the pre-Enlightenment Baruch Spinoza.

 

In my years of study and reflection I came to some conclusions regarding God, the universe and man, which I published in my books as well as in the internet. Coming one day to certain Spinoza commentaries I realized that they had a great similarity with my writings; this encouraged me to study in depth Spinoza’s thinking, not just through commentaries and quotations as I had done in the past, but going to their very source: the original writings of Spinoza. This is what I found in the book Spinoza Complete Work, edited by Michael L. Morgan. [1]

 

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) has been recognized as a genius, and as the precursor of the Enlightenment of the XVIII century. His vision came ahead not just of his predecessors and contemporaries, but of scientists of later centuries. “Although Spinoza lived and thought long before Darwin, Freud, Einstein, and the starling implications of quantum theory, he had a vision of truth beyond what is normally granted to human beings” (emphasis mine), as Samuel Shirley wrote in the Preface of the mentioned book. [2] Spinoza is a modern philosopher, more actual today than in his time. He was the sage ignored for centuries, which is still enlightening the world of science and philosophy today.

 

This is what makes Spinoza great: his vision! And that is why we admire him: his courage! Spinoza broke with religious tradition of his time before science supplanted religion in the XVIII century. This happened in an era when everyone was forced to believe in a credo, and was submitted to the ecclesiastical authority under the threat of death. His determination for finding the truth came in an era not as ours, when the freedom of expression is a right recognized by most nations, but among a culture of total intellectual repression by the religious power of the age. That was Spinoza’s merit.

 

The central point of Spinoza’s thought is his vision of God, not as the supernatural, interventionist and miracle maker of theism, but as “an absolutely infinite being, that is, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence… whatever expresses essence and does not involve any negation belongs to its essence.” [3] This quote is an incomplete description of Spinoza’s view of God; it is necessary to read his writings to understand his mind. And this is precisely what I found in my reflections: that his idea of God is very close to what I have encountered: that God is, simply, The Existence, as I have explained in other places.

 

But please do not think that because you read these lines that you understood all; this is just, simply, an outline; there is still a lot to explain. The subject continues in the reflection Conjectures about the “Beyond.”

 

 

Go to Content

 

NEW HORIZONS                  04-16-12



[1]  Michael L. Morgan, Editor, Spinoza Complete Work (Cambridge: Hacked Publishing Company, Inc. 2002).

[2][2] Ibidem, page cii.

[3] Spinoza’s Ethics, Part I, Def. 6