I think every theology begins with a simple question: Why are we here? People could ask the additional questions of "Where did I come from?" and "Where am I going after this life?" but I think both of those fall under the original question.
Let's start with the first question in the chronology. "Where did I come from?" or more specifically, "How did human life come into existence?" I think that's a good question for everyone to ask themselves seriously at some point in their life. There's a lot of popular choices out there. You can place your beliefs in evolution, big bang, a preexistence of some sort, or even something along the lines of alien experiments or 'the matrix'. Crazy ideas you say? Well each one has as much proof as the next, none. They are all equally as likely, albeit not equally as plausible. The two most popular theories are either evolution or some sort of God. Basically, science vs God. I choose to place my bet on God. I realize evolution is a modern reality, but going as far as to say all life evolved from bacteria and that man evolved from apes is taking it a step too far I think.
So now we have the theory that some sort of 'God' created man and everything we've come to know. The further begs the question, what is 'God'? Well, again, there's lots of popular opinions. However we again have no proof of any of these opinions and so for all we know God is a interstellar giraffilope that created a race of apemen to be some sort of cosmic child's play toy...not very likely though. So then it's left for every man to decide for himself what he believes about 'God'.
Personally I believe God to be some benevolent cosmic force that had a strong hand in our creation. That being said, I believe in a counter force as well, call it Satan if you want. If there's a benevolent cosmic force, there must be an evil cosmic force as well. Opposition in all things, that just makes sense. I believe that both were involved in our creation, but that's the extent of their involvement. I don't believe that God or Satan has a continual influence on all men all the time, I don't believe that men talk to God or Satan or that either attempt to communicate in any way with man. That means I also don't believe in Jesus as far as him being a man born of God directly and placed on this Earth to administer "God's teachings" to a handful of select people in one part of the Earth at only one time in Earth's existence.
The second question: "Where am I going after this life?" I think is very closely related to the main question of purpose. We, as humans, have a tendency to 'look at the big picture'. That's probably where most religion stems from. Most people look at this life here on Earth and assume that's the whole picture, and, for them, that's just fine. However, for people like me, that picture just isn't big enough. It's a puzzle with pieces missing. I don't necessarily believe in a post-existence or a preexistence. What I do believe is that there's something greater than this life, and that somehow we, as a human race, are involved. That really takes me right into the next question,
"What is our purpose?" and really I think this is the most important question. I'm a very logical person. That means that things without innate purpose or reason are, to me, very unappealing. A friend of mine recently quoted the Bible in suggesting that "Men are that they might have joy." and that that's the extent of our purpose. That we exist simply that we might experience joy. I agreed with him on that, but he was taking "Men are" in the sense of our mortal existence, whereas I took "Men are" in the sense of our eternal souls. To me, the idea of being born, learning everything we do in life, and the dying and losing it all just seems like a waste to me.
If God created us, I believe that he created us for a reason. And, for me, our creation just so we as humans can experience what there is to experience in this life and this life alone, doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit creation. So in my logical mind, believing that death is the end of it would be like an equation that ends at the = sign. You can see the problem, you can work it out, you can even be proud of how you worked it, but you'll never see what it equals.
The same friend offered the idea of reincarnation as a consideration. This approach offers the eternal existence of our souls through the lives of many different people throughout time. He suggested that our soul or 'life force' could exist in a living thing and when that thing dies our life force returns to the planet to be reassigned to a new life. To me this seems like the continuance of life for the sake of continuing life. That our lives are only for the purpose of propagating our species, what some people would argue as our most primal purpose. Again, it just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit the existence of something so complicated as human life.
He then asked if I wasn't happy to simply be alive, to which I replied no. I don't believe people are capable of being happy to be alive. By it's very nature, we would have to have experienced something BESIDES life or at least know something about it to be capable of developing an opinion, about either. You have to experience pain to appreciate not feeling pain. If someone said they didn't like the taste of apples when they have never tasted one, you might think that person is crazy, or an idiot. There is a necessary contrast that must be made in order for opinion to even exist. Therefore when people say they are 'happy to be alive', what they really mean is "The things I experience in life make me happy more often than they make me unhappy", whereas someone who experienced the opposite would say they were 'unhappy to be alive'.
So here I'm stuck on the idea that our existence is greater than just life on Earth. It just makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Do I know what this greater purpose entails? No, and in fact, I don't even care to theorize. The nature of our possible pre or post existence is an unimportant detail to me, and not something I should bother myself over, at least not for now. So there you have it, my take on the questions of life. The thing about religion is that in order to set itself apart from other religions it has to dive deeper into these theories than I have or care to. The things they come up with may make sense to some and may seem totally ridiculous to others. The problem stems from the fact that they get so specific in their beliefs that it disallows them to even interact with each other without a conflict of beliefs coming up. Hence the millions of lives that have been given in religion's name. Damn shame if you ask me...but that's a different topic.
Let's start with the first question in the chronology. "Where did I come from?" or more specifically, "How did human life come into existence?" I think that's a good question for everyone to ask themselves seriously at some point in their life. There's a lot of popular choices out there. You can place your beliefs in evolution, big bang, a preexistence of some sort, or even something along the lines of alien experiments or 'the matrix'. Crazy ideas you say? Well each one has as much proof as the next, none. They are all equally as likely, albeit not equally as plausible. The two most popular theories are either evolution or some sort of God. Basically, science vs God. I choose to place my bet on God. I realize evolution is a modern reality, but going as far as to say all life evolved from bacteria and that man evolved from apes is taking it a step too far I think.
So now we have the theory that some sort of 'God' created man and everything we've come to know. The further begs the question, what is 'God'? Well, again, there's lots of popular opinions. However we again have no proof of any of these opinions and so for all we know God is a interstellar giraffilope that created a race of apemen to be some sort of cosmic child's play toy...not very likely though. So then it's left for every man to decide for himself what he believes about 'God'.
Personally I believe God to be some benevolent cosmic force that had a strong hand in our creation. That being said, I believe in a counter force as well, call it Satan if you want. If there's a benevolent cosmic force, there must be an evil cosmic force as well. Opposition in all things, that just makes sense. I believe that both were involved in our creation, but that's the extent of their involvement. I don't believe that God or Satan has a continual influence on all men all the time, I don't believe that men talk to God or Satan or that either attempt to communicate in any way with man. That means I also don't believe in Jesus as far as him being a man born of God directly and placed on this Earth to administer "God's teachings" to a handful of select people in one part of the Earth at only one time in Earth's existence.
The second question: "Where am I going after this life?" I think is very closely related to the main question of purpose. We, as humans, have a tendency to 'look at the big picture'. That's probably where most religion stems from. Most people look at this life here on Earth and assume that's the whole picture, and, for them, that's just fine. However, for people like me, that picture just isn't big enough. It's a puzzle with pieces missing. I don't necessarily believe in a post-existence or a preexistence. What I do believe is that there's something greater than this life, and that somehow we, as a human race, are involved. That really takes me right into the next question,
"What is our purpose?" and really I think this is the most important question. I'm a very logical person. That means that things without innate purpose or reason are, to me, very unappealing. A friend of mine recently quoted the Bible in suggesting that "Men are that they might have joy." and that that's the extent of our purpose. That we exist simply that we might experience joy. I agreed with him on that, but he was taking "Men are" in the sense of our mortal existence, whereas I took "Men are" in the sense of our eternal souls. To me, the idea of being born, learning everything we do in life, and the dying and losing it all just seems like a waste to me.
If God created us, I believe that he created us for a reason. And, for me, our creation just so we as humans can experience what there is to experience in this life and this life alone, doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit creation. So in my logical mind, believing that death is the end of it would be like an equation that ends at the = sign. You can see the problem, you can work it out, you can even be proud of how you worked it, but you'll never see what it equals.
The same friend offered the idea of reincarnation as a consideration. This approach offers the eternal existence of our souls through the lives of many different people throughout time. He suggested that our soul or 'life force' could exist in a living thing and when that thing dies our life force returns to the planet to be reassigned to a new life. To me this seems like the continuance of life for the sake of continuing life. That our lives are only for the purpose of propagating our species, what some people would argue as our most primal purpose. Again, it just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit the existence of something so complicated as human life.
He then asked if I wasn't happy to simply be alive, to which I replied no. I don't believe people are capable of being happy to be alive. By it's very nature, we would have to have experienced something BESIDES life or at least know something about it to be capable of developing an opinion, about either. You have to experience pain to appreciate not feeling pain. If someone said they didn't like the taste of apples when they have never tasted one, you might think that person is crazy, or an idiot. There is a necessary contrast that must be made in order for opinion to even exist. Therefore when people say they are 'happy to be alive', what they really mean is "The things I experience in life make me happy more often than they make me unhappy", whereas someone who experienced the opposite would say they were 'unhappy to be alive'.
So here I'm stuck on the idea that our existence is greater than just life on Earth. It just makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Do I know what this greater purpose entails? No, and in fact, I don't even care to theorize. The nature of our possible pre or post existence is an unimportant detail to me, and not something I should bother myself over, at least not for now. So there you have it, my take on the questions of life. The thing about religion is that in order to set itself apart from other religions it has to dive deeper into these theories than I have or care to. The things they come up with may make sense to some and may seem totally ridiculous to others. The problem stems from the fact that they get so specific in their beliefs that it disallows them to even interact with each other without a conflict of beliefs coming up. Hence the millions of lives that have been given in religion's name. Damn shame if you ask me...but that's a different topic.
2 comments:
What is proof? You say that there is no proof supporting the various theories or beliefs for the origin of man, yet there are many.
There is substantial evidence of genetic mutations and changes within various species of plants and animals as they have adapted to changing environmental conditions. For example, many varieties of dogs have been created through selective breeding. Evidence indicates that all varieties of dogs that exist today probably originated from common parents. The process of selective genetic breeding has been repeated demonstrated and is proof of evolutionary concepts within the boundary limits of a species. But it fails the burden of proof when extended beyond any given species.
There is also substantial evidence of the existence of a higher intelligence and the influence of that intelligence acting on the world in which we live. This evidence can not be replicated via the scientific methods in use today, but the evidence is substantial enough to easily pass the burden of proof required by any court to convict and send a man to his death. Of what does this evidence consist? Thousands of years of written history, describing supernatural (religious) events throughout the world that collaborate and substantiate each other across vast distances. Knowledge that exceeded the scientific capability of various civilizations (the early Egyptians for instance). How did they get it if not from sources (prophets, angels, revelation from God?) outside this world that have been recorded in written history by many people. Hundreds if not thousands of witnesses that you can personally interview, who will testify under oath of what they have seen, heard, and know. And last but not least, the personal testimony given to many by the Spirit of God, both throughout written history and today, that God exists, that he has a purpose for our existence, and that he makes his influence felt.
We must be careful to not deny the existence of evidence because we have not experienced it or have not been able to personally replicate it. A blind man can deny the existence of light because he has not experienced it or he can accept the testimony of those around him who have. A spiritually blind person can similarly deny the existence of God, or communication between God and man, because he has not experienced it. Or he can accept the testimony of those around him who have experienced it, until he is able to know for himself. The question one must ask in accepting testimony as evidence is what character of person is giving testimony, are they compromised by having something to gain in the giving of their testimony, and how many witnesses can collaborate the facts of the testimony.
As for the question of who was or who is Jesus, the man born in Bethlehem? Whether one chooses or not to believe that he is the Son of God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the evidence is substantial that he was not just another great philosopher. Philosophers do not have the power to command the hearts of millions of people over thousands of years. This can only be done with the continued witness of divinity that is given to those who seek it.
This brings us to your position that the purpose for our existence is “an unimportant detail to me and not something I should bother myself over”. Since you have stated that you believe there is a “greater purpose” for your existence, you have created a contradiction in your assertion to be a logical person. It is illogical to not care whether your life is aligned with this greater purpose and to act accordingly. A logical person would be bother over this contradiction.
You are obviously an educated person, which is nice to hear from. I do understand what you're saying about evidence of 'evolution' or more specifically, genetic engineering. Through scientific methods and manipulation, we can genetically engineer all kinds of things, cross breed all kinds of species and what do we get? A bunch of mutant species and carry aspects of both. Yeah, it's science. I don't see how that pertains to the evolution of man from amoeba.
Yes a blind man can believe that there is a world to be seen, even if he cannot see it, but it's much easier to believe when he doesn't have thousands of different groups claiming to be 'seeing a different world'. He will always get the same opinion about the same thing. "What color is a pumpkin?" "Orange". If everyone in the world is declaring one thing and you choose not to believe it, the problem lies with you, not with them. However, if millions of people are declaring millions of different things, somewhat similar though they may be, the problem lies with them, not with me for not believing any particular one.
I understand there's thousands of years of written history of 'supernatural' or religious events, outside the Bible and other scriptural documents. But religion has been around since probably the beginning of mankind. It's one of the largest and longest perpetuated life choices in existence. Is it so hard to believe that those people would group together to continue passing down their beliefs? However wrong they may be? Just because something has been perpetuated doesn't mean it's true. It's evidence, yes, but of what? Truth? Maybe, but just as likely maybe not. Maybe evidence of millions of years of lies, or 'stories' from a time long gone.
Is it unheard of for the tales of one man to be passed down for thousands of years, such as Jesus? What about David Blaine? Magician/illusionist extraodinaire. Fooling groups of people is a trick, captivating the attention of thousands is admirable, creating such an impact on the world around you that they tell your stories for hundreds or thousands of years? Jesus isn't the only one, so what makes him the Son of God?
Your statement that "It is illogical to not care whether your life is aligned with this greater purpose and to act accordingly" is a matter of opinion. I don't believe your claim, I don't believe you have enough evidence to support your claim. I don't think what you're stating is a matter of logic, I think it's a matter of faith. If a logical person is faced with a number of decisions and knows that one is right and the rest are wrong, yeah it would be illogical for that person to sit back and say "I'm just not going to bother finding out which one is right". However if that same person is faced with the same choices, but he doesn't know that one is right and the rest are wrong, that maybe some are right and some are wrong, or that none are right and all are wrong, it isn't illogical for him to take a neutral stance and choose not to pursue that which he doesn't know to be a truth.
And that's religion in a nutshell, do I believe that religion is a formula with one correct answer? No, I don't. And that's something you can't argue.
Post a Comment