What is your life
The Effects of Mental Curiosity and Mental Creativity
Yüklə 0,55 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Population Explosion and Its Consequences
- The Fall of Human Society
- * 1. What Caused and Formed or Gave the Observable Structure to Existence
- *2. Does a Spiritual Essence Rule Evolution, History, and Personal Destiny
The Effects of Mental Curiosity and Mental CreativityMankind would never have risen from the most primitive level of existence without a degree of mental curiosity and mental creativity. Mental curiosity is based on the genetically given curiosity of lower forms of life necessary for survival and propagation. It then became the most important driving force in modern human society and constitutes much of individual life fulfillment in our culture. The mechanics of mental creativity were described in a prior chapter. The actual use of mental creativity is not only a matter of individual talent and temperament, but also one of cultural attitude and conditions. The uneven distribution of periods of creative progress of mankind in time and geography are witness to that. Why did the Greeks succeed the Assyrians and Egyptians in ancient times as leaders of mankind’s creative progress, and not the Phoenicians or Jews? Why did northern Italy, in its Renaissance, succeed in the mental progress initiated by the Arab universities of Andalusia, and not the neighboring and conquering Spain? What is it that makes mankind progress again and again, often in a sequence of different leading locations, and where may it go in times to come? Population Explosion and Its ConsequencesPopulation explosions are quite common in nature. There are bacterial and viral population explosions, those of invasive plant species, among some pigeons and the bison in early America, and, now, among humans. They occur when predators, large or small (including bacteria and viri) cannot develop fast enough. They begin with disorder and infighting and end with the limitation or destruction of the supporting ecological base. There is no end to human population explosion in sight. The production of enough carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, and fresh water is only a matter of cost – while the natural ecological base for those may be destroyed. Of course, people could then not be farmers, fishermen, or loggers any longer. It is a value-based decision of humanity whether to follow this course or to restrict population growth and protect the natural environment. The unresolvable problems of fast and limitless population growth lie in the adjustments during the transitions, the allocations of cost and benefit, and, mainly, the governability of society under those circumstances. The Fall of Human SocietyHistory presents the fall of societies through natural disasters and diseases or external enemies, sometimes facilitated by internal weakness. In the absence of a natural disaster (including climate change) or uncontrollable disease (unexpected or humanly provoked), what will be the end of our world order, with the USA as the superpower, some secondary powers in China and Europe, the United Nations, and increasing violent insurgencies as around the Muslim world? Will there be another World War between those powers or more war on perceived “terrorism”? If not, will the world’s power structure fall by its own internal deterioration? A prior chapter indicated the surprising fragility of our industrial structure and the growing fragility of our societal cohesion. The collapsing of only a small segment of our industrial structure – whether in energy generation, agro-business, pharmaceuticals, electronics, transportation, or other – could bring catastrophes to large parts of society or geographic areas within a short time, to the big cities first, where most of the people live, and to the already so badly suffering parts of the world. As strains in society grow, the fault lines between interest groups and ethnic groups will become paramount – and these fault lines do not seem to diminish in our time. The balkanization of society may be the larger danger for the future of human society than another World War among the large powers – if not a terrorist bio-, germ-, or nuclear attack occurs. 5.2. Religious (transcendental, spiritual) Understanding of Existence: Is There a Transcendental, Spiritual Essence of Existence? Does This Essence, God, Rule Evolution, History, and Personal Destiny? The concept transcendental (Webster’s: “...beyond the reach of common thought”) is used here as relating to considerations beyond or above the description of the world in the terms of factual observation and the natural sciences. The concept of spiritual (Webster’s: “...not material.........divine....”) is used to describe aspects of Creation that are not material and that might go beyond or above those covered by the natural sciences. The concept of religious (Webster’s: “....recognition of or reverence toward a supreme being”) is used in the approach toward an understanding of a creating, structure providing, and controlling spiritual essence above or beyond the physically existing world. Transcendental or religious concepts relate to the spiritual essence of Creation. To understand existence, one must ask the fundamental question where existence – our universe and all the laws of nature – comes from and whether there is a meaning, purpose, direction or guidance in the evolution of existence, specifically also in our own lives or destiny. More specifically, one would search for inspiration and comfort in a transcendental view of existence – inspiration to actively pursue opportunities or to enjoy the beauty of this world and to find strength or direction to act in this often difficult and confusing life – and comfort to find peace or consolation among all the death and suffering of this world – our own, that of our loved ones, and of so many innocent ones. When everything goes well, human beings feel secure in their world. They analyze the possibility of transcendental aspects of their existence with intellectual calm and are inclined to dismiss the need for a “God” to understand the world. But when great opportunities or catastrophic threats arise in the course of destiny, awe is felt. More readily, a controlling force in existence is searched for, thanked, and, in distress, fervently appealed to. Any perception of a spiritual essence of Creation would have a direct impact on our interpretation of the meaning of our lives and could possibly form a source for our ethical standards. In this sense, the meaning of our lives and our ethical standards would be directly related to our possible understanding of that spiritual essence and, in a religious sense, to our God-image. Consequently, the spiritual clarification of Creation should come first, before the issues of meaning of life and ethics can be addressed. Six basic questions lead to transcendental, spiritual concerns regarding Creation with possible religious consequences. The first question necessarily is:
Even if the understanding of the beginning of Creation were to result in a definition or understanding of a “causative and structure-providing essence of existence”, of a supreme being, of “God”, it would relate only to a God who acted once, many billions of years ago. Is God no longer alive and acting? The spirituality of Creation would become almost meaningless to us if God had never acted again after the original “Big Bang”, if the world had progressed ballistically ever since and often randomly. However, if God has acted again, after Creation, any such additional acts of God in this world would have had an influence on Creation and, thereby, on the course of Creation. Therefore, such additional acts would be acts of destiny – leading to the second question:
Even if God could be perceived as acting in evolution and history, that perception alone could still leave us humans, in our thoughts and emotions, alone with ourselves. However, what many people long for, and often feel in their souls, in prayer, in contemplation, or through inspiration, is a communion with God. This would be more than some feeling of the existence of God; it would be the feeling of the presence of God, of some hoped-for response to prayers, especially in moments of need, but also in moments of joy. Only that communion would establish a foundation for a belief in a “personal” God guiding our personal destiny. Therefore, there is a third question:
It is from the responses to these questions that one could approach the questions regarding the meaning of life, the conduct of life, and the source for our ethical standards. But if there is a personal God providing us with guidance, should we not expect God to judge our behavior? This leads to the next question:
Theology has given us little help in expanding our knowledge or understanding of God beyond historic religious teachings in a way that would correspond to the evolution of nature, our minds, our civilizations or cultures, and in a way that would help us confront the different problems of our time – for example, in the evolution of psychology, treatment of criminal behavior, dissolution of taboos, family planning, gender status, environmental concerns versus human needs, trans-cultural migration, ethics in genetics, united world governance, and many others. Theology has concentrated on forming systems of thought based on the past teachings of Christ, Muhammad, or other inspired leaders, augmented by the theological thought and philosophical speculation of some individuals. In the absence of recent, clearly understandable directives by God, it would be interesting to conduct an interdisciplinary study, with the participation of physical and life scientists, to investigate whether ongoing action by God (as in ongoing Creation as postulated by “Intelligent Design” 3 ) and a guided structure in destiny can be proven or disproved definitively, and what this indicates about God and our path through life. Possibly, such a study should include the analysis of historic and modern occurrences of assumed “inspirations” and some quantitative, statistical analysis of perceived responses to prayers. Whatever a religious thought process may accomplish, one will have to consider some of the age-old problems of theology that are used as the main arguments of atheists – the existence of so much suffering, injustice, senseless destruction, and waste of lives in the world (theodicy). This leads to the next question:
The lack of free communication with God, and the diversity and contradictions among the claimed divine inspirations throughout history make it very difficult to arrive at an all-convincing answer. One would have to consider the interpretations and thoughts of many great minds of centuries past – from the Vedas, Zoroaster’s teachings, and the Book of Job, to modern discussions of a global religious consensus on ethics (Küng) – and their contradictions. Consequently, one arrives at the final question:
Attempted answers to the above questions: * 1. What Caused and Formed or Gave the Observable Structure to Existence?Most religious inquiries into the origin of Creation are searches for the actions of a God, for a “proof of God”, or for an understanding of a God one already assumes to know. This constitutes a search for a confirmation of a pre-established faith or a pre-established God-image. There is the possibility of a significantly different and more effective approach. One could look at Creation – our universe and nature – without preconceived ideas and simply ask what such an observation of existence can or cannot tell us about the originating source, essence, or originating power. The originating power of the universe is the ultimate mystery, whatever name we give it. Nobody can doubt that our universe began. Nobody will ever know why it began. All we know is what happened, and even that we do not fully know. However, we can look at Creation with our limited understanding, marvel at it, and try to learn from such observation about the creating and structure-providing essence from which it came. A religious fundamentalist will not agree with this. In the opinion of such a religious person, we can never understand the spirituality of Creation by ourselves. We can only learn what God cared to communicate to us through inspiration as communicated to the founders of the respective religions. Such inspiration alone, in the opinion of fundamentalists, provides the correct interpretation of what Creation means and who God is. Many scientists and modern individuals disagree with this point of view. They experience the world through observation, and they search for a God-image that explains the origin and characteristics of existence as it is. They expect that a story of Creation and an image of God obtained from religious inspiration should not be in conflict with factual scientific observation. The scientific story of Creation indicates the following:
These observations lead to the following conclusions regarding the originating essence of our universe:
Further thoughts concerning the “image of God” are presented in a later chapter. *2. Does a Spiritual Essence Rule Evolution, History, and Personal Destiny?Most people, if they give any thought to this subject at all, believe in either one of four different theories or a vague combination of those.
a. Regarding the concept of a divinely guided evolution and history, possibly also personal destiny, following a plan: The universe, as indicated by its structure and evolution, does not appear to be created for any efficiency in reaching a specific goal as part of a plan. Here are some observations: The universe is largely empty, lifeless, and inhospitable. Only 5% of the content of our universe constitutes the material out of which our stars are made (with another 20-25% being mysterious dark matter and the balance being dark energy). This material is concentrated in relatively miniscule dots, the stars, and some widely distributed nebulae in the emptiness of the vast and expanding space of the universe. The way the universe is structured, life can occur only on an extremely small percentage of all planets and, even there, only rarely under specifically favorable circumstances. Approximately 10 billion years of astrophysical evolution elapsed before life appeared here on Earth. It took some more billions of years of cellular development on Earth before its atmosphere was totally changed and any complex organisms could evolve. Numerous extinctions threatened all life repeatedly, leading to new forms of life thereafter. This observation does not provide the impression of a Creation and evolution, which had humans, their higher culture, and safe personal destinies as its basic plan and purpose. Human life, rather, appears as an afterthought or incidental occurrence. Furthermore, on the one very small island of life that we can observe – here on Earth – most living beings, plants, or animals are in a very cruel struggle for survival, a struggle without fairness or compassion and with much waste of life. The human character is still half-beastly in its own lack of sufficient compassion and amply demonstrated cruelty. Additionally, all organisms on Earth suffer from the nature-imposed urge toward overpopulation and its cruel consequences. This observation does not let guidance of history or destiny appear to follow a benevolent plan. In natural evolution, the “Intelligent Design Theory” postulates the formative guidance of a spiritual essence in the appearance of complex forms or configurations. Science, however, has demonstrated the action of “natural evolution” in all those cases and, as a matter of fact, in all of natural evolution, thereby not seeing any unexplainable, spiritual action beyond the original Creation. b. Regarding the concept of phased creativity, leading step-by-step through the various levels of evolution from the basic material creation to life and the human mind. This concept does not see a one-time Creation, but a dynamic, ongoing process of the evolution of existence with paradigms changing in time, including the appearance of totally new divine creative concepts or “ideas” in cosmic time. This dynamic understanding of Creation would lead to the image of a still creatively active power or a dynamically creative formative essence of existence – God. Such a concept would correspond to the image of an artist who continues creatively to work on his Creation, who develops new creative thoughts that did not exist or that were not visible in earlier times. The later creative thoughts are not only complementing, but possibly also contradicting some earlier creative thoughts. In this sense, the appearance of human values led to a phase of Creation that became elevated above the unfairness and cruelty of the animal world. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, each earlier phase is relatively little suitable for the next one. Thus, there are few areas in all of physical creation that are suitable for the development of life. Also, the lower life phase, with its basic evolutionary force in selection of the fittest and cruelty in struggle, is unbearable to man with his ideals or intellectual inclinations, his sensitivity to suffering and compassion, or his artistic interests and humor. This could indicate that the successive periods were not considered initially and that they present truly original creative impulses at the times of their occurrence, possibly inspired by the results of each preceding period. In other words, God had not predetermined everything but retained his freedom to act and decide in the course of time, possibly willing to reconsider earlier creative ideas. In this understanding, one can distinguish at least three phases of Creation:
As the three phases become superimposed, the substance and laws of underlying earlier phases of Creation are still effectively valid, while the significant new creative phenomena of each new phase define the newly appearing participants of that phase. The problem with this view comes from a cosmic perspective and from the questions of theodicy. It is unlikely that life appeared only once – 10 billion years after the Big Bang – and only on this Earth. It is much more likely that some forms of life have and will appear in the universe from time to time in different places – some of it billions of years before us, some long after us. All life of higher capabilities must be the result of some evolution. Consequently, all creative ideas could have occurred or actually were tried out somewhere else in the universe long before our natural and human evolution here on Earth. This would have made the earlier phases of evolution on Earth unnecessary. At least, they should have been much shorter 4. But the lack of elimination of the ongoing cruelty in this world does not allow the vision of that designing or destiny-determining, all-powerful force to be in accordance with the presumed new creative phase – to correspond to a “father” of Christian or human values. And how about the negative occurrences that could be seen as divine action in the course of natural evolution and human history, the repetitive and highly destructive extinctions, later the Asiatic invasions, or ever-new plagues? On the other hand, one should be careful not to see history as being totally guided by God. This would deny human freedom and all human responsibility, thereby contradicting the basic principle of the human era of existence. But how can one see God as the creator of the universe and deny God’s participation in the evolution of mankind? Without interference by God in destiny, what religious sense would any kind of sacrifice, prayer, or ethical behavior any longer have – except utilitarian benefit and emotional soothing? One should be careful, however, not to asymmetrically ascribe all positive moments in mankind’s history to the direct action of the “hand of God” and all bad moments to human action. The various natural catastrophes (some still occurring on our time), pests, and the arising of mighty Asian hordes overrunning great civilizations were not human deeds. The great calamities of mankind and all its individuals – whether in birth defects, accidents, plagues, invasions, wars, devastations of cultures, premature death, or suppression of great minds – are an enigma, as are the great changes toward progress, enlightenment, and well-being. Anthropomorphic explanations of divine intent in calamities, as the setting of examples or the teaching of lessons, appear inadequate and lack all compassion or logic. Explanations by divine justice are equally inadequate, since too many innocent people became victims. The saving of the innocents, as at Sodom and Gomorrah, usually does not occur. The only conclusion is that we humans are still part of the world of randomly or probabilistically appearing physical cataclysms and of the Darwinian struggle of all living beings, including bacteria and beasts and including criminals and tyrants. The two earlier phases of Creation, the physical and the Darwinian, have not been invalidated in the human phase. They reach well into our existence. We had better accept this fact in humility, as well as our responsibility to take action to improve our lives. A more detailed discussion of possible “creative steps” in the course of the evolution of the universe, nature, history, and the human mind is presented in the chapter “B. COROLLARY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS” at the end of this essay. c. Regarding the concept of free evolution, but augmented by occasional divine inputs in the form of inspirations or interventions changing the course of history and personal destiny – possibly leading to divine responsibility when those are not occurring. This concept of Creation and evolution is the one most people believe in. Most people fully accept the validity of the forces and laws of nature and see evolution occur accordingly. However, most people also see occasional “acts or interventions of God”. That is the reason why many people pray or sacrifice for divine interference in critical situations. The arguments against guided evolution (see above) are the same as the argument against this concept, specifically:
The unexplainable absence of divine intervention in moments of greatest need was emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI in his speech on May 28, 2006, at the former concentration camp of Auschwitz. He asked “Why, Lord, did you remain silent?” and “How could you tolerate this?” These questions apply to so many other catastrophes as well, to tsunamis, earthquakes, wars, pestilences, and all the many personal suffering of countless “innocent” individuals on Earth. Does the question imply a divine responsibility, a possible sharing of “guilt”? Or does this observation lead to the simple consequence that the spiritual essence of existence does not guide history or personal destiny, and is not active in this world? See the following observations: d. Regarding Creation of only the initial conditions – with subsequent evolution merely following the laws of nature – without any further divine interference. In this concept, as preferred by science, the original Creation, complex as it was, included the potential occurrence of all later evolution based on the created energy that empowered it, the forces that structured it, and the natural laws that provided for dynamic evolution in time. One should almost assume that the expectation and vision of a later evolution was part of the concept of the Creation of our universe as and how it occurred. In this understanding of our existence, our own life and destiny, embedded as it is in all nature and the characteristics of humanity, is founded on that “divine” concept as expressed in the original Creation. The meaning of our lives may be seen as serving to fulfill the Creator’s evolutionary expectation. It is in this understanding of our being embedded in a larger concept of existence that we can attempt to find the inspiration and comfort for our lives. In this concept of Creation, the creative essence appears inactive in the course of evolution or human history and destiny. This concept also excludes any response of “God” to human petition through ritual sacrifice or prayer – leaving, at best, compensation in an afterlife. As a result, humans must assume the full responsibility for those conditions here on Earth that we could change. *3. Is There a Personal Relation to Spirituality of Existence, a Personal God? We humans have always searched for contact with the spiritual forces of existence, with our God. We wanted to find answers to important questions, we have searched for spiritual clarification, and we most urgently asked for help in times of need. While we search for direct, conscious, reproducible communication with clear answers to our questions, all reported contacts with God have been subjective, not reproducible, and, unfortunately, often contradictory. Since direct communication with God is not possible, a number of indirect approaches have been tried. Can humans read God’s mind through some forms of divination? Can humans influence God through sacrifices? Can individuals personally communicate with God, through divination, meditation, inspiration, and prayer? Does God hear our prayers? Does God respond to our prayers? Sacrifices are the oldest form of attempting to influence God, and divination is the oldest form of attempted communication with God. More sophisticated communication with God includes the meditative immersion into a certain one-ness of the human individual’s mind with the spiritual essence of existence. “Inspiration” is hoped to provide some communication in thought. Verbal communication in prayer is the most direct, most practiced, and ideal communication with God. Is there significance in sacrifices, divination, meditation, inspiration, and prayer? Sacrifices: Many people have attempted to influence God and destiny through sacrifices. Examples are the burning of meat, the spilling of wine, the quantities of incantations or supplicant prayers, pilgrimages, self-inflicted suffering, charitable donations and other good deeds. The miraculously healed pilgrim will always indicate that God can be moved. Also, sacrifices in the form of good deeds can be seen as God-pleasing, since they are viewed as leading to a fuller life in human values. Beyond that, sacrifices are exercises of character, in giving up some wealth and some materialism in controlling oneself, in freeing oneself of selfishness. There were cases where sacrifices of the one kind or other seemed to have changed the course of destiny for the sacrificing person. An objective evaluation, however, as in a form of “quantitative theology”, is missing. Therefore, such positive results can be seen as cases of statistical outcomes, selective observation, or psychosomatic events. Divination: Since God does not speak to humans every time they ask a question, answers from God have been looked for in the outcome of random events, such as the throwing of sticks or the flight of birds. All the antique and modern schemes of divination, however, have shown little evidence of reliable truth. A fatalistic reliance on such methods has proven wrong. Also, having obtained Divine indicators has been claimed too readily when personal desires or individual interpretations actually prevailed 5. There is no evidence that divination ever worked except randomly and, therefore, was supported only through selective observation by those, where results just happened to turn out more or less right or could be interpreted in different ways. Meditation: In terms of neurophysiology, meditation is a form of calming of neural activity. The calming event may be sensed as a pleasant form of stress reduction. Calming can lead to a prevalence of right-side-of-the-brain thought, which was found to be somewhat more holistic and three-dimensional visual, often leading to creative ideas in a combinatorial process out of previous memory elements, perceptions, and own thought (see the author’s essays, “Creative Thought” and “Mental Creativity”, on the website www.schwab-writings.com). Religious meditation is an intuitive thought process, often related to feeling. This process is expected to provide a general understanding and insight into Creation, God, and oneself, for the purpose of alignment with God’s will, peace of mind, greater power, or guidance through life. But meditation, when not augmented by intuitive new thought or new concepts, only facilitates a one-ness with the self-formed or self-perceived God-image, which may or may not be the true God-image, possibly being only the humanly understandable one. What else can we expect? Most often, this God-image was learned in one’s own or in an adopted cultural setting, or was the humanly produced one that is derived from a personal interpretation of existence or projected into existence. All religious apparitions have appeared in the mold of the region and times of the viewer – even the strange Ezekiel apparition had some standard Assyrian connotations of its time. Can humans ever understand the ultimate image of God, the creator of the universe? Could humans bear to see God? Yet, we long for an ever-better understanding of God and, hence, a better understanding of the existence we live in. To the extent that a given God-image allows a viable explanation of the world and a beneficial approach to its problems, meditative immersion can facilitate solutions to existing problems of the individual. Even if an explanation thus derived actually is not viable but appears to be so to the meditating individual, to that person, the meditation provides the impression of being a solution. This was so for the martyrs in ancient Rome who were expecting eternal salvation after their death, or the martyrs in Muslim holy wars equally expecting instant elevation into Paradise. For many individuals, their God-image allows neither a true nor a perceived explanation of or viable solution for their actual problems in this world. How can parents of any religion cope with the accidental suffering of their small children? How can one cope with the fact that there are so many innocent victims of violence? But meditative immersion into, and the admiration of, Creation can, at least, lead to a stoic acceptance of the existing problems as part of an evolving universal existence. This was so with Job, the Stoics, and many individuals whom we call “stoic” and admire for their strength of character in either adversity or success. As we perceive our place in the totality of Creation, we may possibly find harmony in existence or, at least, humility for ourselves in accepting existence as it is. This is where we find peace for our souls and strength to act. One should not forget that exceptional success is equally a cause for concern as is affliction. Most exceptionally successful people in history, politics, business, or daily life were tempted into extravagance or into tackling problems beyond their ability to cope with. For these successful (or lucky) people, sincere meditation in concentration on a beneficial God-image and a beneficial interpretation of the role of human leaders could have provided guidance. A specific aspect of meditation is the Zen-expectation of reaching enlightenment. The general enlightenment searched for by Zen meditation most likely is nothing more than a psycho-somatic effect providing the feeling of mental well-being but without also providing any actual knowledge of the world. The occurrence of useful ideas during meditation is a well-known phenomenon. It is explained by neurophysiological considerations regarding subconscious thought (see the above-mentioned author’s essays, “Creative Thought” and “Mental Creativity”). At its limits, as in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the occurrence of useful ideas does not necessarily exclude transcendental considerations. This is where the faithful among scientists still seek divine assistance or believe in divine inspiration. In sum, meditation can be a most beneficial approach to a possible spirituality in the origin or course of Creation and, for the religious person, to communication with a spiritual aspect of Creation, but only if it is based on the right understanding of existence or, at least, on a beneficial image of God. Otherwise, meditation could be misleading. Inspiration: The neurophysiological background of the causation for the sensation of “inspiration” in the human mind is explained in the author’s essay “Religion” (see the website “www.schwab-writings.com/pt/Rel”). Inspiration is related to the phenomenon of sudden idea generation in the human mind. This phenomenon results from conscious and, more often, sub-conscious creative, combinatorial thought that suddenly reaches significance and, therefore, reaches foreground awareness in the mind. The origin of this sudden appearance can startle the recipient and cause thoughts about divine origins of such new ideas, hence the belief in a divine “inspiration”. Inspiration, as discussed in the following, is the assumed divine communication of thoughts or images to the human mind. The great founders of religions, as well as many religious people, have experienced the sensation that they interpreted as receiving of divine inspiration. In their search for a course through existence, many individuals have experienced the gaining of clarity through what they felt as “inspiration”. But, mostly, divine inspiration has been claimed too readily, when, actually, personal perceptions or individual thoughts or dreams prevailed. This more critical interpretation of inspirations is mainly accepted and reserved for those inspirations, which occurred in the other but one’s own religions. Not inspirations, but the prevalent needs of a culture as perceived by exceptional thinkers or leaders are the ideas that most often form people’s religious attitudes, their image of God, and, hence, their insight gained from inspiration. The individual has every reason to hope for a suitable inspiration. But there is every reason to be careful not to accept one’s own thoughts as divine inspiration. Personal experience may confirm both positions. Yet, what else can individuals and mankind hope for, but that the believed inspirations appearing in their minds at least be beneficial? Prayer: Prayer is mostly verbal, often logical and concise, person-to-God directed, for the purpose of improvement of life, forgiveness, direction, insight, gratitude, or for other needs or purposes. Prayer exclusively for personal benefit is understandable in situations of need. Existence can be cruel and lonely without appeal to divine compassion or peace of mind. Prayer should, however, not lead to less personal initiative and self-reliance than is demanded in this world. Prayer that verbalizes one’s search for guidance in life, or for clarification of objectives in existence and for a favorable destiny, is quite understandable (as is meditation about the general aspects of Creation and one’s own position therein). I see prayer (and meditation) as the expression of the mental relation between humans – touching on the essence of man’s existence as a human being in this universe – and the transcendental interpretation of the origin or essence of Creation. In this sense, any scientist and even atheist can “pray” in reflecting upon this essence of existence and our role or direction in this world – and may receive inspiration or comfort. Does verbal prayer reach God? In our phase of Creation, the appearance of differentiated emotions and values in the human mind – combined with the capability for speech – lets humans reach out for a verbal communication with a personally reachable God in prayer. If God’s creation gave us a mind, emotions, and verbal expression, should we not expect God to perceive those aspects of Creation and, hence, our prayers? Any thought that the transcendental essence would not perceive its own creation appears incomprehensible to us. As stated before, one must be careful in arriving at conclusions about the Creator by observing Creation. On the other hand, as also stated before, the two – Creator and Creation – cannot viably be in conflict with each other. In other words, the creation of an era of ethics, compassion, values, love, justice, and aesthetics should imply that the Creator was sensitive to ethics, compassion, values, love, justice, and aesthetics. The creation of speech implied the usage of speech, also in mental communication, including mental communication with God. Thus, prayer is the base for our calling out in joy or sorrow to the Spiritual and Formative Essence of Creation – whether we receive an answer or not. It is in this context of our most important aspects of life – our thoughts, emotions, and values – in a verbal communication that the vision of many people of spiritual forces in existence becomes a vision of a personal God, with whom some resonance of our “soul” can be expected or hoped for, even as expressed in words. Does that mean that we are actually being heard or even responded to? Can we ever call on God for help? How can we deny that option when considering all the blessings bestowed upon us in our lives! We can be most grateful for so many prayers heard, for so much help received when praying for it and also when not. But how about all the unlucky ones? Are we only creating a faith and religion of the lucky and successful ones, of the survivors? Is that reality? Life’s experience tells us that response to prayer cannot necessarily or hardly ever be expected, not even in the most desperate situations. How about all the prayers cried out in despair during the genocides, wars, plagues, and daily disasters in the course of human history and personal lives that were not responded to? Pope Benedict XIV alluded to this predicament in his speech on May 28, 2006, at Auschwitz when he prayed: “Why, Lord, did you remain silent …. How could you tolerate this?” This lets us see the abject difference between us as creatures and a humanly not-understandable Creator or, more abstractly, a “Formative Essence of Existence” in this grandiose but violent and often cruel universe. In accord with the principle of freedom and responsibility of our phase of existence, the greater part of our lives is not controlled by the interfering hand of God. It evolves under the influence of all the factors of existence around us, often according to the laws of nature, its random events, and the laws of basic life. We are sent out to act according to our capabilities, in freedom and responsibility, in an attempt to create the kind of world we want to live in. *4. Did God Issue Ethical Standards and, then, Will Act as Judge for Every Individual Upon Death? The starting point of such beliefs is animistic: seeking spiritual forces behind earthly events. In the higher religions, such belief is anthropomorphic. God, the supreme being, must be perfect – in human terms. This must include moral perfection – again, in human terms. Moral perfection requires fairness. Therefore, God must be “fair”. Consequently, good people must ultimately enjoy a better life than bad people. The observation of earthly lives does not confirm this. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had reasonably good lives – and their ends were not worse than some cancer patient’s ones. Many innocent people suffered unspeakable horrors during recent times, as others had already done so through all historic ages. The observed “un-fairness” on Earth leads to the belief in a Divine judgment at the end of life and following compensation for the earthly deeds or suffering in the afterlife. Thus, the heroes and good people go to heaven, the bad ones to hell. Christian thought additionally introduced possible forgiveness and redemption (and a transition through purgatory). What if there is no afterlife? What if God is not an accountant keeping track of sins and merits? What if we cannot grasp the transcendental, spiritual foundation of existence? We might be well advised to live by the moral rules assigned to our human lives: do right because it is right, not because we want to benefit from it, here or there. We are well advised to take our destiny as it comes – in fear, humility, or gratefulness – and still glorify the spirituality of existence, God, as being above our human ways. Afterlife? Is it merely to redeem our claim for compensation? Again, that would be very anthropomorphic. May the transition into timelessness at the end of life be a peaceful one for our minds. The scientific understanding of the universe indicates its ultimate demise in either some Black Holes and, possibly, their subsequent dissolution in ever-expanding and ever-colder radiation. There is no room in this understanding of reality, and it does not make sense in any reasonable terms, to see a permanent static “storage” of all “souls” for eternity. Actually, it should not make that much difference whether or not there is divine judgment and compensation in afterlife. One must advocate righteous living with resulting peace of mind. One can hardly ever advocate martyrdom for abstract principles, curtailing future life potential for anybody. One can, however, advocate personal sacrifice for the benefit of others. The significant point is, in my opinion, the choosing of a course through existence that is meaningful, that one can consider fulfilling life’s potential in accordance with man’s place in God’s Creation. This should be the motivation to pursue worthy goals in life rather than the fear of judgment or calculation for future benefit. But for simple human beings and the desperate and the marginalized ones in this world – is there hope for going to a better afterlife – for themselves and, more often, for their loved ones, whom they would like to see saved and want to meet again? What else is left for them in an often very cruel world? One should not take this faith from them! *5. How Can One Explain so Much Senseless Destruction, Cruelty, Suffering, and Waste of Life in This World? Where does this leave the question of theodicy? None of the anthropomorphic images of God and no vision of a guiding hand of God in this world and its evolution can be harmonized with all the negative aspects of nature, history, and personal destiny. Some people see a religious explanation for some destruction and suffering in self-inflicted punishment. But this can in no way explain the large amount of suffering inflicted on the innocent, the senseless cruelty, and the widespread destruction occurring at all times throughout the nature and the whole world. Theology cannot explain most of those as acts of God within any reasonable God-image. These aspects of existence can only be seen as being part of the structure of Creation and natural evolution, including the physical catastrophes or random accidents and the violent struggles of species, clans, and individuals. One must come to the conclusion that God leaves the world to its own natural, historical, and psychological causalities – and us with the responsibility to improve the conditions on Earth! Are we guilty not only for what we have done, but too often also for what we left un-done? There is no protective wall around sensitive humans unless they themselves are able to erect such protection. God’s helping hand cannot be expected to intervene and may not even avert the greatest desperation. This is the way the world is. We can find peace by admiring the universe and accepting it as it is. We can find strength to act in our own realm. We can hope for the evolution of human society in a direction toward greater prevalence of benevolent values. *6. What Should Be the Resulting Image of the “Formative Essence of Existence”, God? Can one validly arrive at conclusions about the Creator by looking at Creation? In fact, all founders of a religion, from the Vedas 1500 BC on, including Jesus, and every group of priests throughout history have referred to the observation of existence in defining, confirming, or proving their respective God-image. The obvious and most important reason is that the two – Creator and Creation or God-image and observation of reality – cannot viably be in contradiction or conflict with each other. In actuality, however, that contradiction occurs quite often in various religions. For example, is the cruelty and unfairness in the animal world an indication that God is cruel and unfair? Should such a God-image therefore apply to the human world? Seen in its totality, the world may give an image of Creation that is totally in conflict with our “humane” ideals, aspirations, and values. The resulting conflicts between the religiously stipulated God-images and the actual observations of existence were resolved in various religions, either by selective observation of reality or by assuming a God-opposed spiritual force (the Hindu God of destruction or the Devil in some Christian theology). Another common resolution of the conflict between God-image and reality is presented by the assumption of a final judgment and the existence of a compensatory afterlife. This was believed already by the Egyptians and taught by Zoroaster, by Christianity, and even by Communism – in the latter case, by offering the hope for an idealistic society after an initial period of terror and misery. Is that necessary? Is it necessary to take recourse to selective observation, to anti-divine counter-forces, or to a compensating afterlife in order to understand Creation? That should not be necessary. In a more factual view, one can look at the presently observable structure of the world around us or at its dynamic character in an evolution in time in order to attempt to understand its structure-providing, transcendental essence. In its presently observable state, one can say that the structure-providing essence responsible for its structure was enjoying diversity. Existing species are protected in their individuality by means of specific survival capabilities and prevented from dilution by means of procreation barriers between species. New species evolve in filling ecological and topographic niches wherever and whenever they can be found in an evolutionary way. One can also consider the phenomenon of the human mind, including its emotions of love, ethical values, and art. This leads to the attempt to include these “humane” aspects in the image of the creating essence, God. But it still is the cruelty of the world – which then also would have to be included in the image of God – which inhibits us from final conclusions. One can see Creation as having been laid out not only in intellectually creative terms, but also as projecting aesthetic joy. Can observation of the dynamic evolution provide a better understanding of the image of God? It is certainly an image of increasing expression of spirituality in letting the abstract realm of thoughts, emotions, and values appear. It is one of fostering the dominance of the spiritual over the material; one of expecting boundless initiative in freedom and responsibility resulting from the capability for pre-conceiving consequences and visualizing resulting situations, a capability, which also led to fairness and compassion for other living beings. Therefore, observation of the past and present would not allow conclusions about the future of Creation. Consequently, the God-image would have to be changed by the appearance of each new advance in evolution. For example, an observation of early, inanimate creation would have led to a concept of God that possibly would not have allowed the understanding of the world of life. A pre-human God-image would not have contained elements of justice or love. However, one should be careful not to asymmetrically ascribe only all positive moments in evolution and mankind’s history to the “hand of God”, or all bad moments to human action. The various pests and the arising of mighty Asian hordes overrunning great civilizations were not human deeds. The great calamities of mankind and all its individuals – whether in birth defects, accidents, plagues, invasions, wars, devastations of cultures, premature death, or suppression of great minds – are an enigma, as are the great changes toward progress, enlightenment, and well-being. Anthropomorphic explanations of divine intent in calamities, as the setting of examples or the teaching of lessons, appear either as cruel or as inadequate. Explanations by divine justice are equally inadequate, since too many innocent people became victims. The saving of the innocents, as at Sodom and Gomorrah, usually does not occur – neither at Dresden nor at Hiroshima or the NY Trade Center. The only conclusion is that we humans are still part of the world of randomly or probabilistically appearing physical cataclysms and of the Darwinian struggle of all living beings, including bacteria or beasts and including criminals or tyrants. The two earlier phases of evolution, the physical and the Darwinian, have not been invalidated in the human phase. They reach well into our existence. Can Christians maintain the belief in an anthropomorphic, always loving God-Father when a simple look at nature in their own backyard, a visit to their hospital’s emergency station, or to its children’s ward teaches them differently? We had better accept this fact in humility, as well as our responsibility to take our own action to improve our lives and to help where we can. Can one gain an understanding of the intent or expectation of the Creative Spirit or God from the observation of the dynamic character of evolution? One can see evolution merely as a result of the starting conditions or character of the original Creation, plus the action of the “combinatorial principle” and the “basic principle of evolution”. One can also see God as un-attached to any “moral” or “ethical” values. One does not see an evolution including fairness or compassion – until the appearance of mankind. But one can see God with some important basic expectations regarding life – to express its automation, self-reliance, prevailing in the tasks of life, and in fulfilling its potential. There are specific questions if one looks beyond Earth at the possibility of other civilizations in the universe. If we believe that there was divine influence on human history, should we expect that it was similar or equal in other civilizations scattered across the universe? Should we expect revelations through divine inspirations equal to, similar to, or different from ours? In the terms of Catholic doctrine, were all intelligent or human-like beings on other heavenly bodies also created “sinful” and had to be redeemed, through the murder of God’s only son, or how else redeemed and by whom, or why not? If all other civilizations in the universe were created sinful and had to be redeemed, how can we understand that? And, if we humans on Earth are the only sinful ones and the only redeemed ones, how can we understand that? Can followers of Oriental religions understand why escape from existence into Nirvana should be the ultimate goal for all intelligent beings everywhere else in the universe – and if not, why on Earth? Some theological assumptions and statements by present-day, established religions on Earth and their priests do not appear tenable any longer when seen in the universal context – as they are not when seen in the context of suffering. There is no doubt that present religious teachings correspond to the mental horizon of humans in times past when they served humans well. There is every reason to be deeply grateful for at least some of these past teachings, specifically Jesus’ teachings. It is also, no doubt, true that religious essence, in a grandiose spiritual view of all of existence, should be universally valid. This leads, however, to the conclusion that some anthropomorphic ideas of God and the heavens are not tenable. A new image of the essence of Creation – of Alpha, of the Supreme Spirit, of “God” – can only be more grandiose than a purely Earth-related one. However, it will not be for us to understand the ultimate mystery of existence and its dynamic course. Historically, the process of religious development is somewhat related to the creative thought process of the human mind (see the author’s essays, “Mental Creativity” and “Religion: What is Religion? What Should Religion Be?”). The thought process of the great religious thinkers and founders of religions influences this process through their personal thoughts and religious inspirations. Contacts with other religions bring new perceptions. Breakthroughs in God-vision (paradigm changes), requiring opposition to priestly classes when not coming from them, are difficult to accomplish and are unsettling to religious people. There is a direct correlation between the image of God (or the understanding of the spiritual forces of existence) which people develop in their religious thoughts and the role they see for themselves in existence – and their consequent behavior. It is difficult to distinguish which was developed out of which. War-bound societies have heroic or gruesome gods (see, for instance, Hitler’s propaganda-return to pagan gods). The law-bound early Jews saw in God the strict judge of their behavior. Christ’s preaching (also Jewish) of brotherly love was based on the image of God as a father. In many discussions (and in a good part of this writing), a rather factual or pragmatic approach is used in answering the questions about God and human faith. For most people, however, faith is an expression of the “heart” or “soul”. Our scientific age is inclined to treat matters of the heart or soul critically, relegating them to psychology. One does not have to agree. One can see friendship, love, compassion, caring, joy as the most significant aspects of human existence. For Christians, faith is the belief in the divine foundation of such forces or values. As one accepts these forces or values as a real and significant part of Creation, at least in human existence, one is inclined to see their foundation in the essence of Creation, in God. Thus, God, as the Creator, is seen for us humans as the source for strength of “heart”, for warmth of “soul”, and for compassionate initiative in life in fulfilling our role in this world. In summary, one certainly arrives at a most glorious image of God as the Creator of this grandiose universe and the ruler of its destiny. One certainly arrives at a multifaceted image, combining the understandings derived from the various phases of evolution. This image is based on the ultimate abstractness of all that exists in the form of energy and gravitational fields in the vacuum, all abstract phenomena in nothingness. It includes the physical mechanics of the universe controlled by the forces and laws of nature and the large areas arranged in a random fashion. It includes the surprising appearance of life in very few favorable spots in the universe, with life following the principle of automation, the need to take care of itself, with no fairness or compassion. Finally, it includes the appearance of humans and, possibly, other higher beings and their civilizations in a number of isolated, selected spots in the universe, with a high degree of freedom based on thought and the consequent responsibility to develop their small area in accordance with their values. This implies a God or a spiritual force that contains these new human-related concepts, including the ones of human fairness and compassion. This also implies a God with who’s direction for us humans our souls should seek to harmonize in meditation or prayer. Many individuals or groups believe, based on their own life’s experience and that of others, in a supreme essence of existence, whom one may want to appeal to in despair, in search of compassion. The result of a deeper understanding of this world we live in, however, should not be expectation of help but, mainly, fortitude of heart to bear hardship in humility when suffering is unavoidable, to find strength for struggle when improvement is possible, to adhere to the right course in life at all times, and to be grateful for blessings in the course of destiny. Yüklə 0,55 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|