In this our second post, we will continue with explanation of the background concepts for the purpose of this blog.
Man seems forever, to have had a strong need for 'religion' in his life. Actually, it would appear that, as even the 'sacred' Judeo-Christian writings (Scriptures/Bible) would suggest, such an obligation was not always so central in the daily lives of men. Now, I'm not about to start into a discussion of historical details we know very little of, so at this point let's assume that around the time of the setting up of the Babylonian civilization, was the genesis of the perceived need for man to have a worship system or two; thereby conceptualizing various deities for the purpose of presenting his devotion, gifts and sacrifices, in the hope that things will start to go better for him, ultimately leading to his security and comfort levels being increased.
After 5000 years, I think we can now stand back sufficiently and see it for what it was, without any fear or favor. So let's be as blunt and succinct about this as possible. Certain individuals chose to develop an object or two of their own design, which most of us today call by the generic term 'god/s'; in the hope that they would subsequently feel better about their lot. The process to this aim was through the conduit of their sacrificial devotion to these 'god/s'. So, the decision to incorporate 'gods' was an act as brazenly and obviously SELFISH as all that. It was never going to be about honoring their 'god/s' because they deserved such recognition and praise, for such notions were clearly added later, in order that a more decorous sounding veneer be placed over the entire show.
Of course, the concept looked good and worthy enough, so that we see other human societies around the place from (at least) that point onwards, developing similar traditional practices, as much a natural prerequisite in their societal needs as a fresh water supply and fertile soils. Yes, the big business of religious faith; adherence and practices, was well under way.
Whilst our observations to this point have been from a particularly scriptural perspective; i.e. that religious pagan worship started in
Please note: For our ongoing purposes, the term ‘pagan’, will henceforth refer to a belief in a; more than ‘one only’ deity. So Islam and Judaism are counted out, as of this term. Christianity is another matter, due to the argument that it (may) rely upon the existence of more than one deity; being the three individual (triune) ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. We expect this to be a topic of much further, deeper and spirited discussion as we progress, however for the time being, let us consider it (Christianity) as sitting somewhere between the two general worship systems of today; being
(a) ‘One’ - Creator, and
(b) ‘More than one’ – Progenerator; under the generalized term ‘pagan’.
Just how much has changed in respect of man's perception of need for religious adherence since those historical beginnings, is a matter of further interesting conjecture, and will likely be looked into in later discussion. In the meantime, it might be a reasonable point of interest to look at a couple of other indoctrinations (besides that of religion) that also rely upon a dogged 'blind' adherence to belief structures that are not actually proven beyond doubt. Such accusations are most often leveled at those who hold steadfastly to their 'blind' faith in scripture; and in particular, the Christian; yet are also most observable in other areas of discipline. Such determined immovability in things not proven, and most likely also, not provable is, I would suggest, as obviously full of religious zealot undertones as it could be; yet are not usually seen as such, because they are not from areas traditionally regarded as 'religion'.
The first observation to be noted here, would apparently be much of the religious like immovability of many a scientist upon his favored area of steadfast doctrinal resolution. It would occur to me that much of such allegiant stance rests upon similar snares of unprovable assumption, just as he might accuse the man carrying a Bible of falling prey to. So again; for mine, his belief structure can easily be just as obviously built upon little more than a similar kind of blind faith adherence, as he might accuse the Christian, Jew or Moslem. So, let's get a little more specific here, shall we?
As I see it, there is more than just one conclusion on the table of indoctrination of which our friend, the scientist is determined to never stand down from, yet fails miserably in the scientific standard 'empirical test'. The 'empirical test' demands that all conclusions be based upon that which can be absolutely proven by demonstration/observation. In particular, I am referring to the synopsis of evolution, which to me seems the most problematic in this regard for him.
Generally, scientists can see no other possible alternative to the pieces of rock, bone and animal evidence he is stockpiling, than (as we all know); evolution over billions of years, commencing from; nothing and gradually building through a series of accidents and perchance; to what we all behold around and under us today - everything in fact. Well, as you know, I am no scientist; however even I, as an overfed, underpaid, uneducated and disinterested nobody, can think of at least three other scenarios that make a whole lot more sense to my neutralized and fossilized brain cells, than their latest concept of ‘The Theory of Everything out of Nothing through Nobody’.
Therefore, I would suggest that such deeply concerning concepts are far more likely based upon something that smells a whole lot like; blind faith alone. Hence my suspicion; that many scientists, rather than their particular disciplines, display certain characteristics that closely enough resemble; those of the blinkered fanatically extreme religionist lobby.
Important caveat (A): I am in no degree laughing at the scientist's proclamation as mentioned above, 'Everything out of Nothing'; for as silly as such a statement sounds, at the very least, he was able with definite courage to, offer himself up upon the world stage, where he recognized and verbalized that such a concept simply HAS to be the overall truth of the origins of all that exists, including the stars and planets, and you and me. Now, when I say that such a concept HAS to be the truth, please understand that I am referring, as it were; from his perspective alone. For as we discuss further, we will see emerging, that there is a profoundly better and far more agreeable explanation, which strangely enough almost sounds upon first hearing; as very similar.Important caveat (B): In making the observation above, that I 'can think of at least three other scenarios that make a whole lot more sense ........ than ....... ‘The Theory of Everything out of Nothing through Nobody’'; there was no suggestion that there are many possibilities to the origin of all there is. There are in fact, only three options that can be regarded as truly serious contenders, being;
A. (Science) The EVOLUTION theory, brought to us by scientists, many of whom are now concerned about this concept, without (due to their demand for empirical explanation) any other place to retreat - yet!
B. (Religion) The BIG MAN in the sky theory, who is powerful and visible, but for some reason invisible to us; as generously brought to us through millennium; by (naturally enough) - Religion.
C. (YAHWEH), which unlike the previous two options is not a theory at all, and relies on no-one's acceptance, because it is WHAT IS! And as we delve further, will become as obvious as the water in our glass as we drink it down. Again, for the purpose of this blog; this is our YAHWEH option.
So are we suggesting that science is actually another religion, somewhat akin to what one might find in a mosque or church? The answer is – clearly NOT, as general observations would have it at least. Due to it’s theoretical nature of empiric based research and understanding, science in and of itself is not a religion per se. However, we are not observing the overall theoretical here, but the actual practice, as at a grass roots level; and for mine, at grass roots level, the scientist's faith in, and steadfast adherence to some chosen indoctrinated beliefs, can look exactly like any orthodox religion you care to point a sharpened stick at.
If nothing else, the overall picture takes on a far more balanced appearance if there are fanatical extremists on both sides, which is after all the natural state of things human, and I think we have swallowed the almost constant; almost racial slurs against the ultra radical religious camp for long enough. So again, our purpose here is to attend to getting things into a little better perspective. Therefore, yes we have extremists in the camp of religion, and also in the camp of science. We will be intending to navigate a very different path to either of these, and concentrate on the what is YAHWEH.
