Correspondence with religious friends
When is materialism going to grow up?
Photo by Alex Bunardzic, 2012
Preamble
There is a simile that was offered 2,500 years ago by Shakyamuni Buddha. In the simile, the Buddha asks us to imagine a person who just got shot by a poisoned arrow. The person falls to the ground, squirming in pain, as the poison is starting to spread through his veins. Those around him rush to help, to extract the tip smeared with poison from the unfortunate man’s body, but he flatly refuses to allow them to help him. Before he will allow anyone to take the poisoned arrow out of his body, the man demands to know:
Who shot him? Why did they shoot him? Where was the person who shot the arrow at him standing? What was the exact velocity of the arrow as it penetrated his skin? What type material was used to make the arrow? What type of poison was smeared on the tip of the arrow? Who are the perpetrator’s relatives? Who are his friends? What is his social status? How old is that person? What is his level of education?
And so on. Procrastinating like that, while asking more and more questions, the man soon succumbs to the poison and dies, while his questions remained unanswered.
In my view, the above simile (or metaphor) aptly illustrates the mentality of people who are focused on scientific research. Yes, the field of research is fascinating, and there is always much more to discover than we’ve already discovered, but in the process no (or, very little) value to the human condition is added. Oftentimes we see that this narrow focus not only doesn’t add value to the human condition, it actually removes some value that was already there.
The question is: why do we find ourselves in such undesirable, unwanted predicament? Hasn’t the age old promise of science been to bring more certainty into our lives, to alleviate the pain and suffering that could not be assuaged by fabricating and following superstitious beliefs?
Is religion the solution?
If science fails on the promise to make our lives more meaningful, is religion then the best way to bring meaning into our lives?
To discover the answer to that question, I decided to connect with some religious friends, and engage them in a discussion (sometimes even in a debate) focused on the validity and the place of religion in our lives.
What follows in this book is a collection of various hypothesis, theories, and thoughts on religion, science, and other human practices focused on finding the truth about our reality. From my side, I am acting as a facilitator. I don’t have a horse in this race, but because I myself am not religious, I am in no position to argue from the side of religion. For that, I rely on my religious friends to chime in and enlighten us.
But first, I’d like to say a few words about the topic I call “higher intelligence”.
On the topic of higher intelligence
If there is a supernatural being who created the world, it stands to reason that such being possesses much higher intelligence than the intelligence of the beings that it created. If that is true, such arrangement poses a seemingly insurmountable problem in front of us — how can a being with lower intelligence detect the presence of higher intelligence?
The issue boils down to this: if someone can unambiguously detect the presence of so-called higher intelligence, that person would automatically be in the possession of such higher intelligence. Otherwise, the presence and actions of such higher intelligence would be perceived by the beings of lower intelligence as a mere sequence of seemingly random, unrelated events.
Let take an example: my dog likes to follow me and watch me doing things. The other day he was sitting on the sofa and was watching me while I was setting up my turntable. Setting up a high quality turntable is a very involved process. It requires a keen eye, a steady hand, a selection of sophisticated, specialized tools, and a lot of patience.
While my dog was watching me doing all that work, he had no way of understanding what’s going on. In his world, most activities are focused on looking for the next thing to eat, and also trying to get my attention and then enjoying my company, the belly rubs he is getting from me, and hearing me say “you’re a good boy”. His world is much simpler than my world, therefore I am at a higher intelligence level than he is. And he cannot detect my level of intelligence, no matter how intensely focused on me he may be.
Similarly, if I am presented with some form of higher intelligence, to me all those acts performed by a higher intelligent being would appear as something quite random. I may try to find rhyme or reason for those apparently random acts, but I would most likely just fabricate some superstitious quasi-pattern. Us humans are notorious for suffering from stupendous levels of superstitious thinking.
That being the case, if I claim that there is a supernatural being, a God, who is the creator of all this, I have no way of knowing that. I am merely daydreaming, fishing for patterns, fishing for some kind of an explanation of how things are.
However, that daydreaming, that flight of fancy, is not reserved for supernatural realm only. Science also suffers from the same flights of fancy, from the same pseudo-intellectual fishing for patterns in a desperate attempt to make sense of all of this.
Let’s see now if this line of thinking could solicit a rebuttal, or further insights from some religious friends.
Correspondence with Anton Teterine
Endless quest for knowledge about how the world works
Photo by Alex Bunardzic, 2021
My friend Anton was kind enough to indulge me in a protracted correspondence in which we entertained various ideas and concepts related to religion, deism, theism, monotheism, spiritual practices, materialism, etc.
I started my correspondence with my friend Anton Teterine by sending him this letter:
Dear Anton,
It's been a while since we spoke, and I recently recalled how you were interested in religious and spiritual study, and that you've been thinking and studying different religions and contemplating on religious vs spiritual aspects. The difference between holy scriptures and churches, that type of thing.
You see, I find myself in the same boat now, and would love to hear more about your conclusions.
To begin, I'd be curious to know whether you think that God is a man made concept, or whether man is a God made concept?
I'll await your reply with a baited breath. Also, it would be great if you could provide some colour to your thoughts, maybe in the form of an argument or some strong evidence that you managed to collect.
Sincerely,
Alex
Anton quickly replied:
Hi Alex,
Great to hear from you, and what a wonderful topic!
I’ve been contemplating this for some time now. As a tech-minded person, I believe it’s important to agree on, or at least define, some terms when conveying a thought.
I think it’s fair to agree that religion and the church should be treated as separate concepts. In some ways, they might intertwine, while in others, they might oppose each other.
Then, the whole concept of God. Since there might be multiple definitions of God, it is fair to state that this term itself is man-made. Moreover, throughout time and civilization, there have been singular and plural usages and conflicts between them.
From my perspective, and coming purely from religious study instead of a religious point of view, singular use is probably what we have in front of us for our discussion.
I think, in general, as human beings overcame the necessity for constant fighting for survival and acquired some sort of physical security, the development of the human mind progressed towards questioning its purpose, contemplating fate, and becoming open to the possibility of higher beings while searching for direction and purpose.
Although many people compare humans to other mammals or other animal species, desperately hoping to belong to a larger kind of living beings, our minds allow for the possibility of even higher beings' existence. Such existence is desperately needed, possibly out of fear of ultimate responsibility for actions and their consequences. It is convenient to play stupid and shift blame for good and, more importantly, evil onto somebody else.
So, as we progressed, we sought a higher purpose and potentially shifted blame to explain the unexplained.
I would argue that humanity needed a God in one way or another for various reasons, be it for positive reinforcement or greedy desires.
But let’s get back to the basic question - is human kind made by God?
Well, I’m quite sure that I am, just like yourself, a product of the act of love of my parents. As for humankind, and even larger - the universe, the physicist's explanation is as valid as the creationist one - in a sense that neither has any irrefutable evidence. In that sense, believing in science is similar to believing in creation.
Just to keep the dialogue open and avoid coming to a conclusion, at some point, humankind didn’t see waves nor outer space. Spiritual vision, for all its worth, could be just another form of energy we are yet to measure, or maybe we just lost those measurement instruments. So with that said, I believe it’s more likely than not that our existence didn’t occur as a result of some randomness and is more likely a part of a plan than not.
Regards,
Anton
What follows is a chain of letters that were exchanged between Anton and yours truly.
Hi Anton,
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I really appreciate the careful thought that went into your reply. I'd like to comment on a few of your observations/conclusions. You wrote:
"From my perspective, and coming purely from religious study instead of a religious point of view, singular use is probably what we have in front of us for our discussion."
I agree. At least from the Westerners' perspective, it looks like all religious beliefs that preached the existence of multiple gods have been by now discredited (Hindu religion is a significant exception, of course). But all three major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are adamant that there is only one God.
You also wrote:
"I think, in general, as human beings overcame the necessity for constant fighting for survival and acquired some sort of physical security, the development of the human mind progressed towards questioning its purpose, contemplating fate, and becoming open to the possibility of higher beings while searching for direction and purpose."
I have tried to comment on that quest for knowledge in the opening of my book. The incessant avalanche of questions which are seemingly inexhaustible, no matter how many good answers get furnished. The entire quest appears to be futile to any thinking person.
Another interesting statement you made:
"As for humankind, and even larger - the universe, the physicist's explanation is as valid as the creationist one - in a sense that neither has any irrefutable evidence. In that sense, believing in science is similar to believing in creation."
I cannot help but agree with you here. Religion often gets accused of being dogmatic, contrasting it with science (which purports to be anti-dogmatic). But science is also dogmatic, as it insists on certain starting premises that are unalterable (we can talk more about those premises at a later time).
You concluded with:
"Spiritual vision, for all its worth, could be just another form of energy we are yet to measure, or maybe we just lost those measurement instruments. So with that said, I believe it’s more likely than not that our existence didn’t occur as a result of some randomness and is more likely a part of a plan than not. "
That's a very interesting observation. As you are no doubt aware of, science is firmly founded on the dogmatic premise that there cannot possibly be a master plan. Religion, on the other hand, insists that there must be a Master Plan.
What is interesting about religion is that it is split into two camps: deism and theism. Deism is based on the belief that an intelligent supernatural, superior person (God) has created all this. Theism is based on the belief that an intelligent superior person has created all this and in addition continues to be involved in the unfolding of the creation, in taking personal interest in individual humans. The supernatural, superior person (God) listens to each person's prayers, monitors everyone's behaviour, keeps track of how things are unfolding in the world.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on these concepts.
Until next time, stay well!
Alex
Always happy to share some thoughts and hear others’ perspectives.
Regarding the Abrahamic religions mentioned, it appears to me that they all are part of the same "teaching," if you will. Three different scriptures ultimately speak about the same concept of a singular God and are all connected. As a matter of fact, the Holy Quran describes these scriptures as somewhat misinterpreted and attempts to steer people away from the church.
Regarding your comment, "I have tried to comment on that quest for knowledge in the opening of my book. The incessant avalanche of questions which are seemingly inexhaustible, no matter how many good answers get furnished. The entire quest appears to be futile to any thinking person." It’s been my experience, and I am convinced that the search for answers is far more important than finding those answers.
You see, with the ever-increasing role technology plays in our lives, we tend to move away from the "unexplainable" and seek to have explanations for everything. In that sense, humans are closing themselves off to the possibility of the supernatural. This attempt is, in my opinion, an ultimate move away from God, whatever God may be. In that sense, God would be a category of those events that are unexplained or, better yet, unexplainable. Chance, luck, miracles - these are just a few examples. Some religions try to instill fear of God and its punishment in people, and perhaps that’s what scares some of them away. Assuming the "absence of God" and coming up with some hypothetical explanations for peculiar events, in some sense, creates peace and order in the human mind.
Thanks for introducing me to the terms "deism and theism.” I had a thought recently that just like for various levels of scientific development, people use simpler and more primitive terms, the same can be said for spiritual development. In order to rule and order lower developed minds, theism might be better to keep them in check. A perfect example for me is the term Karma. As I progress in my studies, I have discovered a far different meaning of Karma in life. While some other people, including the irreligious and even atheists, interpret it as something theistic, like somebody is watching their bad and good deeds and sends them opportunities based on that.
Furthermore, on our discussion of the concept of God, I would be interested in learning about the concepts in other teachings such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc., especially Taoism, as I suspect there are more similarities than differences between God and Tao. As for others, I just haven’t gotten to them yet.
Regards and let's speak again soon.
Anton Teterine
Thanks for getting back to me with your even more elaborate observations, Anton. To step aside for a moment from the discussion on God, I would like to mention that, generally speaking, religions could be grouped into two categories:
1. Revealed religions
2. Awakened religions
The Abrahamic religions that you mentioned (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are clearly in the revealed camp. I would say that Hinduism is in the awakened camp.
Back to our discussion on God -- you mentioned how with the advent of science and technology, we are now seeking to obtain explanations for everything. And you add that it is a losing proposition because we are closing ourselves off to the possibility of the supernatural.
I definitely agree that closing ourselves off to the possibility of the supernatural is the ultimate move away from God. It is not possible to claim that God is not supernatural, for the simple reason that the way God reveals himself is by performing miracles. And as you wrote, God to us represents (or, shell we say, reveals) those events that are unexplainable.
If you don't mind, I'd like to spend a few moments here to try and unpack that 'unexplainable' phenomenon. To my way of thinking, our lives are based on the universal principle of regularity. Everything in our reality appears more or less cyclical, and those cycles are extremely predictable. The night follows the day and then the day follows the night, and so on. We breathe in, we breathe out. We get hungry, we eat, we get hungry again, we eat again. Same for getting thirsty. We spring into action, we get tired, we rest, we spring into action again, we get tired, again, and so on. In a nutshell, we perceive such events as representing the ingrained regularity that our reality is characterized with.
Every now and then, something irregular occurs. That irregularity typically throws us off. We are struggling to explain it. How did it happen? Will it happen again? Can we make it happen again? If yes, what do we have to do to make it happen again? Or, can we avoid it in the future? If yes, what do we have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again? That type of thing.
We see that religion does not play a significant role when it comes to dealing with the regularity that reality presents to us. Religion is more concerned about irregularity. It's mostly about things that we cannot control. Religion helps us deal with unpredictable events. Such as, what happens when the event of my death arrives? Those types of questions.
Karma is not a concept that can easily be tied into monotheistic religions. In such religions, everything is God's will, so there is no room for karma to enter and operate.
You have also mentioned the following:
"Furthermore, in our discussion of the concept of God, I would be interested in learning about the concepts in other teachings such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc., especially Taoism, as I suspect there are more similarities than differences between God and Tao."
As you probably know, there is no God the Creator in Buddhism. From what I know about Taoism, the same principle applies -- there is no Creator, no primum movens. Therefore, there is no one we could pray to asking for protection or for favours. We're on our own, forging our own destiny as we solder on.
I hope I've addressed all your points; if I missed anything, please let me know.
I'm now excitedly awaiting your reply.
Alex
Hi Alex,
It’s been a while. God sent me guests and my time was preoccupied with the family. ;)
One comment that made me contemplate on categorizing in general is "there is no God the Creator in Buddhism”. Yes, according to the Genesis God created earth and everything on it, but I think focusing strictly on that ‘function’ or, I would rather call it characteristic of God-being/function is narrowing the rest a bit too much. My comment of similarities between Tao and God is rather in its boths nature of wholesomeness - God is all and, as far as I remember, Tao is as well. Neither can be explained, nor can be limited by words.
But again, I might have moved away from churches to religion. In my view Abrahamic religions, although split into few directions, is one religious teaching of only one God. And in that sense if God is all, then it makes sense that there is only one God - only one “all and everything”.
Furthermore, there is an interesting nuance in Genesis and in its story telling. I will summarize it as:
- God created mankind, Lord created Adam and further tellings of Bible are about those Lord’s creations, which are in parallel with God’s creations life and being. -
- "G 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
- “G 1.26 And God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
- “G 1.27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” - who is Us, in which likeness human kind was created? Was God speaking to everything else created before?
- “G 2.7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Seems like a new character, Lord God was introduced in the tale.
Then you said that "religion does not play a significant role when it comes to dealing with the regularity”. I would have to disagree, by simple fact that life and death are dealt in religious way as well as being and serving God in every day actions - again, similar to Sadhana concept.
Yes, miraculous events are attributed to God’s doings but I would argue that such attribution occurs in church rather than religion, as miracles are performed by human, or by God through human, - but still human performing miracles.
To sum up what I want to convey is that religious, in my opinion, better looked at through prism of human being for better understanding rather the prism of church and its rituals and traditions.
Anton Teterine
Hi Anton,
It's great that God himself gifted you with a nice visit from your family. Sounds like you had a lovely time.
Continuing our discussion, I'd like to comment on the "God the Creator" function that you mentioned. You put it in the context of 'wholesomeness'. The way I understand it, I think you are hinting at the Absolute. Meaning, Absolute as the all-encompassing. Nothing escapes the Absolute.
According to the Buddha's teaching, there is no God who is a person who created all this. The distinction boils down to the following: is that Absolute a person or not?
Abrahamic religions insist that the creator is a person. Not only that, but the creator person cares about each and every one of us, human beings, who got designed by him in his workshop to be molded in his image. That creator person follows our daily affairs, monitors what we do, and is keeping score, so that on the final Judgment Day, we could square off and see where the chips may fall.
In other words, in Abrahamic religions, this world is heading toward its inevitable end.
Also, a brief comment on regularity. To us, common humans, regularity is something that makes sense. OK, the only time regularity really doesn't make sense to us is the inevitable regularity of dying. But that's the only exception. For everything else, when it comes to regularity, we have our common understanding and common agreement. We know, for example, that if we lift an object in our hand and then let it loose, that it is going to fly downwards, toward the ground. That is a regular occurrence which never befuddles us.
Also, we know that if we drink water, after a while we will be forced to urinate. Those types of regularities. No big mysteries when it comes to those sorts of things.
God performs miracles by creating the world out of nothing. Such an event is not a regular occurrence. Also, in ancient times God was performing miracles by sending us earthquakes, to punish us. Today, no one believes anymore that earthquakes are miracles performed by God.
Another interesting observation (I'm quoting your Biblical passage): G 1.26 And God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Interestingly, back then that passage read like an exhaustive list of all living beings. Subsequently though, and many centuries later, with the invention of the microscope we learned about the existence of another kind of living beings -- microorganisms. And we learned that we have zero dominion over those beings.
For some reason, God failed (or forgot) to inform us about microorganisms. One wonders why that is, since we're talking about the superior omniscient being.
Best regards,
Alex
Hi Alex,
I read a hint of sarcasm in your writing, and it puts a smile on my face. I think it’s great to have some fun during discussions that might be considered overly serious by some fanatics; I really enjoy our exchanges.
It really depends on what is meant by the word God. As a not strictly Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, I would argue that each religious teaching is like a subject in school. Each of them does not describe everything completely but from a specific angle. It’s been argued that Jesus traveled across the world between his youth and thirties to study all and brought back distilled knowledge from many religions when he returned to Jerusalem. With that said, my usage of the word God is closer to the Buddhist Absolute. And from that angle, God did bring guests to my house ;)
As I wrote earlier, even Abrahamic religions were written to deliver the same message in different ways during different times. From the larger scope of the verbally transmitted Torah to the set of Ten Commandments, to the emphasis on love and down to fear and obedience in Islam. Furthermore, different religions aimed at different angles of Being and merely describe it from one perspective to assist humans in Doing.
Overall, I think studying teachings is like studying subjects in school. The more angles you learn, the deeper and wider the knowledge acquired.
And since people have various levels of spiritual development, they will understand different things from different teachings. And only very few of them would get closer to complete understanding. In that sense, those few that are considered enlightened are going on teaching others. And be it Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha, the main question, in my opinion, is - what are you going to do with that knowledge?
Anton
Hi Anton,
I would actually prefer to maintain a bit of levity while we're examining such heavy topics (i.e., questions of life and death).
For the purposes of our conversation, I would like to propose that we first and foremost regard the word God to mean "a supernatural person who created everything and is now observing, monitoring, and occasionally intervening in the events that are unfolding inside that creation". Agree or disagree?
One slight disagreement -- I am not aware of any concept of Buddhist Absolute, which you mentioned in your letter. Could you possibly elaborate? To my knowledge, Buddhist teaching is the antithesis of anything and everything metaphysical.
Also, just to be clear, I do not see Buddhist practice as a pursuit of knowledge about the world. Similar to many (most?) other religions, Buddhist practice is aimed at transcending the world, not at learning about it.
So, your question -- "what are you going to do with that knowledge?" is not of much importance in practices that aim at transcending the knowledge. Yes, use the knowledge as an expedient means. As the Buddha taught, use it as a raft that will enable you to cross treacherous turbulent waters and reach the "other shore". But once you get there, don't constrain yourself by carrying around that raft as a token of your gratitude. Get rid of the raft. It's of no use anymore.
Or, when building a high rise edifice, use scaffolding. But when finished, dismantle the scaffolding.
Knowledge can be an expedient means, but it can also be a tough impediment. Don't get stuck on the pursuit of knowledge, but strive to go beyond.
Best,
Alex
P.S. One thing I forgot to respond to is Judgment Day.
I have recently come across this concept and wanted to share it with you. This concept suggests another meaning behind Judgment Day, or the Last Judgment. I will start from afar: if we consider Bible stories not as historical events but rather as tales with meanings, the story of Adam and Eve can take a different turn. While Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden, paradise, they knew no evil; let’s remember that everything that was created was pronounced “good.” By eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, they discovered evil. That duality of good and evil reminds me of Buddhist teachings, if I’m not mistaken.
Now, since they have learned about evil, or rather started judging and not accepting, they were kicked out of the garden. Following that logic, humanity is in hell on earth while they judge and separate. Only when there is no more judgment, hence the Last Day of Judgment, will humanity enter the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Speaking from my own experience, by accepting everything existing and occurring in life, practicing gratitude for what is sent and given, I escaped anguish and acquired a more fulfilling joy of living.
And coming back to the comment about God sending me guests over the weekend, I adopted the Muslim teaching of expressing gratitude for Allah sending guests my way, by entrusting their life in my hands and providing for comfortable beings while they are traveling - be it physically through space or sharing their being through time.
Anton
Hi Anton,
You propose a very interesting and above all original interpretation of the concept known as Judgment Day. Once the final act of judgment gets performed, there won't be any more judging. See, I never thought about it like that. Very interesting.
Biblical parables tend to sometimes be similar to Buddhist teaching. For example, some Buddhist practitioners teach that problems arise when we engage in the activities of picking and choosing, which is another way of saying trouble begins when we start to judge everything. Excellent new angle, thank you for providing me with that insight.
The joy of living that you've achieved is indeed possible when one gives up the incessant accounting that is focused on gain and loss. Humans typically go through life carrying around a giant imaginary ledger where they record events that happen to them and decide whether to put each event in the "Gain" or in the "Loss" column. Such a lifestyle is utterly exhausting and cannot possibly lead to peace of mind, and consequently is presenting a barrier to achieving a fulfilling joy of living.
Stay well,
Alex
Hi Alex, I like to keep it light and humorous, so let’s continue that way.
Regarding your proposition of the definition of God, as I mentioned, I do not consider myself a follower of the church, but rather a seeker of truth. To me, God has a slightly different meaning. And although I follow God as a singular entity, I completely disagree with the concept of God as a person who sits and watches. Furthermore, even all branches of Abrahamic religions do not portray God as a person themselves either. When I read your note about higher beings and the dog and human example, I find that the logical extension into the next level of intelligence above humankind is a wrong path to finding God. I allow the idea of a higher race or kind to exist, maybe even among us, but God, omnipresent and omnipotent, is not that nor close to that. If anything, since God is everywhere, everything is God.
Even Christianity gets lost with definitions and comes up with foreign concepts like Jesus as God, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Trinity.
As for the Absolute and my incorrect interpretation of your response, assuming that was the Buddhist concept, please accept my apologies. I now clearly see that’s not what you wrote.
Anton
Hi Anton,
Thank you for clarifying your views on God and the church. You seem to prefer to drive a demarcation line between God and the church. But if, as you say, God is everywhere and everything is God, then surely church must also be God, no?
Now, your disagreement that God is to be viewed as a person brings up what may be a crucial question in this discussion: do you pray to God? If you do, and if God is not a person, who do you pray to? Who is it that keeps track of your life story and is interested in intervening and sending you guests to brighten your day?
There are also some differences in how people define religion. To some, religion means striving to attain mastery over the world, over the existence. To others, religion means transcending the world, transcending the existence.
Regardless of the religious camp one belongs to (or aspires to), it seems that all those camps are based on a single concept -- the afterlife. Without the idea of the afterlife, religion does not have much unique content to offer to the human condition.
I'd be interested in learning about your views of the idea of the afterlife.
Alex
“But if, as you say, God is everywhere and everything is God, then surely church must also be God, no?”
Haha, Alex, in this case, I would allow myself to introduce another demarcation: there are things created by God and things created by humans. The church falls into the category of things created by humans. Another spin on that is the church is an organization, not a thing, hence making that comparison is similar to arguing that since water can be hot and lava can be hot, water can be lava.
Moving to a more serious part of your reply, praying to God, I would like to delve into your view on “manifestation.” Do you think that the human mind is capable of “attracting” or “arranging things outside of it” without human involvement? I added quotes to those words for the purpose of wider discussion.
And finally, the “religion” comment: I would have to disagree with you on two parts:
Part number one: religion deals with life more than death.
Part number two: sticking to the definition of the word religion: “Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements — although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.” Religion has more to offer than afterlife.
In that sense, Buddhism, for example, can be viewed as, and actually is viewed as a religion. To that sense, I could argue that atheism is also a religion.
Now to answer your question on my view of the afterlife. As you could imagine from a comment above, I am more concerned with life than the afterlife. That concept is a perfect speculation ground for various fantasies, and none of them can have any grounds. We can imagine that we just fall asleep and don’t wake up or we wake up from this sleep, for example.
One thing to point out is that none of the scientific instruments we have yet have been able to separate the mind from the body. Science has described visible factors and attributes of mind activity, for example, but not the mind itself.
For example - how do we come up with new ideas? Where is that information coming from? What about déjà vu - what is it? The connection of “gut feeling” with gut organs. And my favorite: asking somebody to put their attention at a certain point in their body - how does it work? And even more “unexplainable” focusing on the point outside of the body.
One thing for sure, as mentioned in a previous letter, we did not have measurement instruments for electric current, radiation, etc., which is safe to assume that there are a number, if not an infinite, of other “phenomena” that we might see as nonsense today but either used to exist or could exist in the future.
I’ve heard that phrase - it is stupid to assume that this civilization is the wisest of them all.
Anton
Hi Anton,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. We are making big strides in this conversation.
I think it's time to try and define what we mean by totality. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, that would imply that God is totality. And by totality I mean "nothing left out".
Now, if we agree that totality means nothing left out, that would imply that no concept, or construct, can happen outside of God. Therefore, "things created by humans" as you mentioned, are also part of God, meaning they are created by God. Ergo, church is created by God.
You will no doubt object to that, and if you do, it brings up another interesting discussion -- if there are things, concepts, and constructs that emerge outside of God, it would mean that there are parts of the world that have nothing to do with God. Those things etc. are outside God's jurisdiction.
If we accept that as the case, then we also must accept that God is not omnipotent, he is not omniscient, and he is not omnipresent. Fine, so be it. But then a more interesting question emerges: where do we draw the line that separates God's realm from that other realm? Not only that, but who is it that actually draws that line? And, once drawn, is that line cast, once and for all, or is it movable? In other words, are we to witness the moving of the goalposts as the examination continues?
That consideration is akin to the consideration that has to do with questions whether the world is determined or is just random. If the world is fully determined, who is the determinator? If the world is fully random, why are we witnessing so much regularity?
If, on the other hand, the world is a hybrid, part determined, part random, then the question becomes -- who decides what portion of the world is random, and what portion is determined? Also, is that decision random, or is it also determined?
I am in full agreement with you that religion deals with life more than it deals with death. That's why I bring up the concept of the afterlife. That concept does not deal with death; it deals with the continuation of life. Once this episode in this mortal coil comes to an end and the body breaks up, religion is here to assure the continuation of life. Meaning, death is just an illusion, we never actually lose this life, as we continue to live in the afterlife realm.
And that is the true attraction of any religion -- this promise of continuation. Not only the promise that I will carry on and continue as I pass the moment of death, but also the promise that all others who I care about are also continuing. My parents, my relatives, my friends, they are all guaranteed not to vanish after their bodies stop functioning here on earth. We all continue forever and ever.
There is a lot of solace for many people when they receive assurances of the afterlife. Solace that only religion can offer.
But in this book I am not interested in discussing religion. As the very title of the book indicates, I am solely focused on examining the experiences and the understanding of my religious friends, and doing it by corresponding with them. Each and every religious human being offers a unique, and often very charming spin on how they view and experience the supernatural. It is those views and experiences that I am keen on hearing about, that I am keen on documenting, and also keen on discussing here.
Thank you.
Alex
Hi Alex,
That’s a lot to unpack :) I will try to disassemble couple of points.
I would like to, when we talk about “meaning” and “concept”, separate it into category “man-created”; while things that man builds, assembles and physically combines and transforms - “man-made”. The distinction between “make” and “create” were exemplified in Book of Genesis: God created mankind, vs Lord God formed/made man of dust of the ground.
“Create” is being used as concept or “thing” that didn’t exist before, while “made” means it is not the first time it is being made, based on the first creation.
Now, if we take two concepts: “word” and “meaning”. What is “word” and does every “word” have “meaning”? If every “word” has meaning, does that mean that any new “word” created ought to have a “meaning”? Or collection of letters must be assigned a “meaning” to become a “word’?
So coming back to the comment of “church is part of God” you rightfully assumed I would disagree. And the reason to that is that although the “collection of people”, “building”, and “art and books” that a part of a “church” are also part of God, the concept of “church” bares a meaning behind it and therefore “man-created” and are not “part of God” per se.
In other words, since man has an unique quality of “free will” and that is the only part of him that he is in full charge and in complete freedom, “concepts” and “meanings” are in his own domain and are independent of God.
In that sense human’s mind is under its own jurisdiction, and on that sense can be distilled to be a complete independent entity. To extend the concept of afterlife, it is quite possible that this entity of “mind” might be able to exists independently of the physical body, locked into another material being - like rock or butterfly, without any freedom to control its being, or reincarnate into another human body - but all said above is just a speculation and I don’t think I am capable of arguing for one or another idea.
I would also argue that very few people live their life for a continuation and it is false to assume that religion provides that solace nor that humans are seeking that solace. It is quite possible that lens you are looking through at the religion and role of religion for people is an afterlife. My goal was to highlight an existence of few more lenses.
I would like to finish with one more thought:
- not everything can be explained with words; nor observed to be proven; nor dismantle to the fundamental and non-dismantlable component. And just like in math we have axioms and just like in math "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.” And just like feelings cannot be measured nor explained in the way the other human can feel it themselves, the experience of God is among the same experience.
Till next time,
Anton Teterine
Hi Anton,
This is marvellous! We come to the crucial juncture -- everything that has a beginning must have an end.
Many religions that I have studied have the end of the world event as part of their core teaching. Yes, the world was created, and yes, it must eventually come to an end.
But I'm so glad that you hit on the very root of the discussion -- the futility of concepts and words. We have rather quickly converged to that special zen moment -- ineffability. The most ineffable thing of all ineffable thingies is free will. It gets difficult, almost impossible to reconcile creation and determinism and regularity with the concept of free will. Words and concepts fail us. Rational thinking abandons us. Irrational, muddled thinking, mumbo-jumbo, takes over. Game over!
Another ineffability is the causality. Is the mind caused by the material body, or is the material body caused by the mind? What about quantum entanglement? The 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to scientists who delivered the proof that the universe is not locally real. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
So, we come to the bittersweet moment where we cordially shake hands and bring this illuminating discussion on religious experiences to its natural end. I have no words to express my gratitude for your contribution to this extremely important topic, Anton.
Be well,
Alex