Why should one be more critical of religion? -Part 1-
BREVI RELIGIONIS REPREHENSIONEM RATIONALEM TRACTATUS
Or why should one be more critical of religion? -Part 1-
What has an Arab Bedouin who lived 1400 years ago to do with our zeitgeist? Why do theocratic states rule in some countries in the 21st century? If one builds a state on the religious assumptions, one builds this on the effect controlled by the feelings and the will of the people and not on the facts which by logical analysis interhuman connections which leads to a possible society building, then this error is this Society vulnerable by nature. If you build anything on feelings, then you must be aware that this certain something is vulnerable because people's will-feelings do not always correspond to reality. It follows that this kind of state is not functional in the reality of things.
Looking back in the history of mankind, one sees the very effect of such doctrines in past societies. Many examples from the Middle Ages are known to us as those who have defended themselves against this kind of metaphysical dogma have been burned as e.g. Giordano Bruno. The Islamic regime in today's Iran which is a theocratic regime built on the rule of sharia, is still taking the lives of many freedom seekers, solely because these people think differently from the rulers of the regime, is the most recent example in nearly 40 years.
During human evolution, long before humans could understand the complexity of the world, our ancestors were confronted with the constant fear of the forces of nature. We are still struck by those fears but the very idea that our human destiny depends on the uncontrollable nature frightens us.
This fear led to a search for people at that time, they tried to protect themselves in a simple way, having imagined that it existed other forces that dominate nature.
Today, the situation is different. Today we are in the position, if not whole, of having a whole small part of our destiny in our hands. The dramatic exponential evolution of science over the past three hundred years has given us a series of entirely new worldviews and world-views that contradict or completely reject ancient religious beliefs. In my opinion, the age of certain assumptions is over. One can no longer assume that there is a wind god or sun god, etc. For the Abrahamic idea of a God, which really is nothing but the unification of an ancient Mesopotamian gods under the name of a god, the same applies as all other pagan gods.
For simplicity's sake after so many written and unwritten, seen and unseen human sufferings inflicted on man by dogma and all the unfounded assumptions, I ask myself the question: what if there was nothing religious or supernatural to accept? The assumption of a meta-existence which is assumed for the sake of simplicity, to allegedly describe the causes of our existence, is false, even from the ground, with no evidence, for there is no correspondence between the accepted and the reality, in a world which is the case of the facts.
In the prehistoric phase of any kind of metaphysical belief, regardless of whether one considers the Abrahamic monotheistic denominations or polytheistic beliefs, human fears are in the background. This fear which belongs to the human being alone, as he would have to look at him stunned, how the fate of his life, of his existence was determined by the unpredictable forces of nature.
Existential fear, I contend, is a fundamental fear to which people are also anxious to spread the unanswered, still-open questions that could arise only because man is an intelligent being because of his evolution. For thousands of years this has led people to justify a nonsensical justification for what our ancestors because of the lack of a naturalistic exploratory power do not appear naturally i.e. within a worldly system of knowledge justifiable.
Man, therefore, was alienated from his idea of another world's forces that must dominate this world, since he could not perceive that his death finally ends his life, and thereby became entangled in his own product of the human error of thought. But if one still assumes that there is a force outside of this nature that controls this nature, then one is able to reduce the natural environment of his being to a level such that one is in harmony with nature which also includes its existence could not really perceive. Truly this perception is in the sense that it is considered as it may be almost objectively analyzed for man.
The assumption of a meta-existence that shows through our doubts of everything that we try to interrogate but because of the then and present state of the sciences cannot find a satisfactory answer inevitably leads us to further assumptions. The reality of the facts match no longer. If an event, whose occurrence is analytically provable independently of our ideas of nature, happens in nature, then one is rationally compelled, whether that seems abnormal to the understanding or not, to assign this event to the forces of nature, since it no doubt about what it has been proved, if it does not open any further questions. Furthermore, this logical conclusion applies to everything concerning the human senses and its productivity.
To be continued...