II. Searching for the minimal faith
necessary for Heaven
/ „According to the first noble truth of Buddhism, there is (a lot of) suffering in life.” /
1. Most of the people are naturally Agnostic, which means that they do not believe in anything important for which they do not have sufficient proof, and they do not believe its opposite either, if that is unproven too. However, they can easily believe the words of their families and friends, and also the general knowledge of civilization without rigorous proof, which means they usually do not seek infallibility. If we wanted to rule out every possibility of error and falsehood, it would cost so much mental effort that could make the average person unhappy. That's why civilization should work in such a way that minimizes falsehood, so that not only the individual, but also the system should filter the false things out.
On the other hand, if Christianity or a similar religion is true, individuals may need to believe in it in order to be saved from eternal suffering. This means that they may need to give up the perfection of Agnosticism in order to gain a different kind of perfection, which can mean an eternal and happy Life to them, if this religion is true. This means that generally, believing in something unproven can be philosophically justified, if the arguments for it are important enough. However, this also depends on the actual religions people believe in. If it is compulsory to sing a lot of questionable songs, or to believe in a lot of dogmas, that might cause some mental conflicts in the mind of the unbeliever, and also between people of different faiths.
That was the reason of my journey from the Baptist denomination towards the Roman Catholic Church, and from the Roman Catholic Church towards Natural Theology, which means Philosophical Theism, a faith based on God Arguments and not on religious texts. Actually, I would be happy with practising Natural Theology and protecting the Environment, but if I do not believe in Christianity, and maybe do not observe some of its commandments, then the Bible condemns me to Hell or something like that, as far as I know / knew. Putting this together with my observation of the power of this religion was a strong urge in itself for me trying to believe in it. Another strong urge for faith was my need for healing, in which this religion might have helped.
It would probably be good for the world too, if God existed and helped, because there should be a force which limits humankind's own technological power, in order to save us from the great evils it has made possible. Thus the concept of religion is a desired and positive thing, just the actual religions may be too bad for us to believe in them. As I have mentioned, a very important problem with these religions is that they make us believe too much things, among which there may be points we cannot accept. Given that there are a lot of conflicting religions, chances are that we are right in many cases. However, it is possible that the minimal versions of these religions are better, where minimal version means that requiring to believe the least (i.e. the fewest) things. Even this minimal version can be too hard to believe in, especially if we think we have found an error in the main sacred text of the given religion; but if we can remove these obstacles against faith by thinking more, then our faith can resurrect. As for me, I was especially interested in understanding the minimal version of the Christian faith.
2. I already have some basic knowledge about the biggest or most famous religions of humankind, or at least I know that they exist. To me, it seems that most of the religions do not condemn those people who do not believe in them, but I think they can accept that eternity for the ethical people may be happiness anyway, and religions just help them getting more ethical. Also, many religions do not try to convert people very much, but most of their followers are from the people where those religions were formed. However, there are two big exceptions, maybe the two most populous and most famous religions on Earth currently: Christianity and Islam. Both seem to condemn those people who do not believe in them. Actually, that is the main reason of me writing this book.
About Islam, I do not know very much, just know it from the outside (although I have already listened to the English translation of the Quran as an audiobook). About Christianity, however, I think I know more than the average Christian, and maybe also more than many Christian priests and pastors, because I was both in Baptist and Catholic environments (which are quite different) and I was also reading the New Testament a lot in those times. That's why it's natural that I prioritize Christianity over Islam in my book.
Perhaps Islam could be regarded as a Christian denomination too, like Arianism (from the name of Arius, who did not accept the Trinity when Christianity was forming), in case most of the Christians greatly misunderstood the Bible. Note that this does not mean that in the time of writing this, I already and fully accepted the minimal faith as some form of Christianity, because there are many more possibilities to examine. For example, I could write about Noahidism, which is based on Jewish teachings about the faith non-Jews should choose in order to be good friends with the Jews in the long term (note that both Christianity and Islam are influenced by the Torah, which is mainly a set of sacred texts of Judaism, the Jewish religion). I could also write about the I Ching, a Chinese classic attributed to a character similar to Noah, a character in the Torah. I could also write about Shamanism, including the practice of trance, a state of mind which was also practised by John the Apostle according to a translation of the Book of Revelation in the Bible. I could also write about Buddhism or other religions of the East, from where the „Wise Men of the East” (Matthew 2:1-12) might have come to bring presents to the child Jesus (at least, they came from the East according to the Bible, and we know that ancient Greeks were in contact with India by the conquests of Alexander the Great, hence the Buddha sculptures according to some Historians). I could also study the religions of ancient Egypt, where the human part of the child Jesus might have learnt some insights (at least, he spent some time of his childhood in Egypt, according to the Bible: Matthew 2:13-23), but of course, I could also write about Julius Caesar, who was almost (or entirely) regarded as a God in some parts of the world he conquered (according to some Historians), and he has the same monogram as Jesus Christ! But instead of writing about these things, more philosophical examinations are planned.
3. I was thinking on the interpretation of the ending (Mark 16:14-20) of the Gospel of Mark in the Bible. As the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) is public domain, I'm going to cite this part of text from that old translation (as I have done it elsewhere as well):
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
I think most of the Christians, including my younger self, interpret "believeth" as believing in the whole of Christianity, not just some parts of it. However, it's a good question what do we call the whole of Christianity. There are the following variations:
- Roman Catholic Church: according to this version, mainly the Sacraments of the Church can give people the Grace necessary for Heaven, where Baptism is one (and the first) of the Sacraments. As for the faith necessary to get these sacraments, you can probably find the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", as well as see this Church from the inside.
- Greek Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, maybe Anglican, etc.: I do not know these Churches as much, but I think they are similar to the Roman Catholic Church, as they base their teachings on probably unbroken tradition and are believing in Sacraments. However, they might need a different kind of faith for getting them. As far as I know (based on my readings), only the "Apostle's Creed" was necessary for Baptism before "the Church" separated into more denominations. Since then, these denominations might need believing in more things.
- Protestant Churches, or Denominations based on the so-called Reformation: as far as I know, most of these Churches have its own Catechism or something like that, which are different from one another, but the essence is that they all accept the "Bible" as the primary source of their faith, just they interpret it in different ways. Almost all of them reject Sacraments (except maybe Lutheranism), and emphasize "the faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the main prerequisite of Grace", which is more to believe than to experience.
- Semi-Christians: of course, there are many other branches, like Unitarians, Witnesses of Jehova, Mormons, etc. with their own extra things to believe in, and/or their lack of faith in the Trinity, but these may be considered non-Christian teachings even by the Protestant Churches.
- The text of the Bible itself: in comparison to the mainstream denominations today, the text of the Bible requires quite a little faith to be saved, e.g. by words of Paul in Romans 10:9 (KJV): „That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
- Maybe it's enough to believe some of Jesus's teachings: In my view we do not need to believe Everything what One person says, even if that person is an Apostle. Consequently, "he that believeth not" might mean "he that does not believe anything" (or "he that does not believe a specific thing, i.e. the Gospel, or in other words, the Good News: those parts of the New Testament which are good news to us"), and it does not mean "he that does not believe all of the things". According to the first interpretation, only those people shall be damned for this reason who do not believe anything at all (or who only believe the bad things). However, the Apostles were probably saying a lot of things, among which there might have been a lot of believable ones. Here the merit of faith would mainly come from the wisdom necessary to agree with the teachings.
Thus I've categorized the possible interpretations of Mark 16,16 (in case it's true). I think only the sixth way may be compatible with Philosophical Theism and Natural Theology, but maybe not. Editing this again, I can also cite what could give me some new faith:
"I was thinking about the two greatest world religions - Christianity and Islam - that they can all be derived from Jesus Christ, so Jesus influenced humankind more than anyone else (Christianity comes from the believers in the Trinity, while Islam comes from those monotheists who do not believe in the Trinity, but still respect Jesus). Israel, the biblical place of Jesus occupies the center of Eurasia-Africa, but it is also connected to the Atlantic and Indian oceans through the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Also, people with European or Middle Eastern origins, who look the most beautiful in my opinion, confess the religions he founded. Based on this, we may think that the formation of Christianity and Islam might have really been the will of God… but this does not mean that these religions are true! The formation of Christianity and Islam may also be interpreted like that part of the Bible in which Moses parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14). Consequently, those people might have had the best chances for salvation who were between the two faiths (Christianity and Islam) somehow…"
Addition: it is also possible that „Mark 16:14-20” is originally not there in the Bible, as it is not there in Codex Sinaiticus and in Codex Vaticanus either… I have written about this earlier. However, my reasoning written here may be built on other parts of the Bible as well, like „John 3:18”:
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Or maybe „John 3:36”:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
4. It's possible that some points of the Apostles' Creed can be disproven later by great knowledge and high spiritual power, at least we do not know whether it will ever be possible to disprove it. This means that believing in it is not philosophically perfect, or in other words, if we believe in it forever without proof, then there is some risk that our demand for knowing only the perfect truth suffers forever. For some people, this might cause some inner spiritual conflict, because either believing or not believing has some drawbacks. For some people, the drawbacks of believing may be heavier than the drawbacks of not believing. Thus they may search for a more rational faith.
As for rationality, Agnosticism seems to be the most rational state of mind, because it does not believe anything unproven. Many people can live a happy life being Agnostic, or in other words, not judging in any question for which the answer is not proven. However, there may be cases when people need some faith, or at least, the rewards faith is said to give to some people. For example, those who have long-term illnesses not curable by conventional medicine, may strengthen their hopes for a future healing by faith. However, spiritual healing is not necessarily associated with faith, but it's also possible that some people can be healed by the opposite: disbelieving.
Anyway, there is a possibility of believing in unproven things, and still remain philosophical. It's believing in unproven things that are philosophically not disprovable. As I have mentioned, parts of the Apostles' Creed like the birth from a virgin may be practically unprovable, and also practically not disprovable, but still, it might be disprovable by a being greater than us. In other words, we cannot prove that it is really not disprovable. However, there may be other parts of faith which are not disprovable for sure, for example, the existence of God. We will never be able to disprove the existence of God, just like we will never be able to prove that the laws of the Universe are really universal. Even if we could explain (and predict) the entire Universe without God, God may still exist. For a similar philosophy, I have made the following advice some time ago:
Do not rule out the possibility of what can possibly be proven true,
and do not believe what can possibly be disproven.
This also works on Atheists to make them more Agnostic. Just there is a problem with it: it does not seem to be compatible with Christianity, at least, with its most famous contemporary interpretations I listed in the previous chapter, except mine: that it may be enough to believe some of the teachings of Jesus (but it is not clear which ones). Anyway, it's hard to imagine that this interpretation of Christianity is true (i.e. the mix of Christianity with this advice I cited). Thus it seems to be more easy to believe either in Christianity (i.e. the Apostles' Creed), or not to believe in it at all. We either base our faith on a religion like Christianity, or on a philosophy like the one I cited here. I think this philosophy is compatible with Natural Theology, however, so I planned to write more about Natural Theology.
5. I do not want to write about the boring details of the History of Natural Theology and of Philosophical Theism, but I suggest that you check the descriptions of these terms in online or offline Encyclopedias, for example, WikiPedia. You can also read about these topics in classic books like:
William Paley - Natural Theology
Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason
However, defining these terms or belief systems deserves at least one chapter here. Theism, by its name, only means belief in God, which can either be Monotheism (belief in one God) or Polytheism (belief in many gods). Philosophical Theism means faith in God mainly for philosophical reasons, not due to custom, tradition or terror of any kind. However, ex-Christians, for example, may have higher chance of developing Philosophical Theism than people without religious education, so they can be like grown-up children. For this reason, and also for e.g. Aristotle's philosophy, Philosophical Theism usually means Philosophical Monotheism in practice. Thus the name of this general belief system is Philosophical Theism, but there are specific kinds of it like Deism (belief in Monotheism and in the impossibility of wonders) or Pantheism (belief in God as the World itself), or maybe Panentheism (belief in parts of the Universe having the ranks of God, but God being present elsewhere as well).
Natural Theology is another term in this topic, but it does not mean any faith or belief system in itself, it's just the name of the method of approaching the question of God, either with faith or without that. Natural Theology is the kind of Theology (a branch of Philosophy or Science) which does not presume (or assume) that a religious scripture or tradition is true or comes from God, but instead, it tries to derive faith-related knowledge from sound (natural, logical, rational) arguments based on things the general public is able to experience in Nature... In the original definition, purely logical (transcendental) God arguments (like Anselm's ontological God argument) are not included in Natural Theology, but some people may mean them too, so there may be a bit of confusion about the term, but in my opinion it does not matter, since I do not accept any God argument of that kind (in other words, I think that Anselm's ontological God argument is not valid). However, there are others like the Teleological God Arguments (the best God arguments in my opinion) which are related to Nature very closely. For the same reason, Natural Theology may get a second meaning of closeness to Nature and the Environment, but of course, it should not be confused with special traditional beliefs related to Nature, either new or old (like Shamanism). Maybe I'll write more about God arguments later, but until then, you can also check these terms in Encyclopedias too.
Shortly, God arguments occupy a very substantial part of Natural Theology, but there are other parts of it like the inquire of God's attributes, or the question of how can we be saved, or what is the faith and the way of life we can pursue for better Destiny, that pleases God as well as ourselves.
Thus the chosen methodology of this work should be the same as that of Natural Theology, which is the same as that of Philosophy, which should also be acceptable and reusable by people from other faiths and religions too. Note that William Paley, the person who wrote the book Natural Theology (here mentioned) was a Christian, as far as we know. Natural Theology is not a faith or religion, but it is a tool that can be used in any religion to support parts of the faith. If all parts of a faith are inspired by Natural Theology or personal witnessing of God's wonders, then it is called Philosophical Theism (of the witness, in case of witnessing), as I have described earlier (although some people may call it simply Theism in case of witnessing too). The essence is that neither Philosophical Theism nor Natural Theology accepts the authority of the holy scriptures, although in many cases they do not deny it either.
6. Anselm's Ontological God Argument first defines a concept ("the greatest being imaginable"), and assumes that this concept is equivalent to God, and afterwards, seems to prove that this concept (or being) must exist in the reality (as it is imaginable, "it exists in the mind", and as being the greatest, it also exists). However, there might be a fault right at the point of the definition: this definition does not necessarily specify one thing well, because it assumes that there is the greatest thing (or being), but in reality, it is possible that there are a lot of great things, none of which are the greatest. For specific natural numbers, we can say which is the greatest of them, but this relation is non-trivial for other things like sets (in Mathematics), as there may be a partial ordering, but not a full ordering there. So if the concept itself is wrong, we are trying to prove its worldly existence in vain. Otherwise, this also shows that there is a danger that for this God Argument, some people may call something God that is not, and God might not like this.
The Cosmological God Argument first states that the Universe had a beginning (either for Scientific or for Philosophical arguments), and afterwards, says that there must have been a cause of this beginning, i.e. God, as the prime cause, or the unmoved mover (e.g. from Aristotle's philosophy). Although this argument really increases the likelihood of God's existence in our minds, it can be attacked by the following alternative of worldview: what if we can really not go back in time infinitely, but still, for every point of time, there was a point of time before that, in a similar way as open intervals work in Mathematics... combining this with the assumption that the size of the Universe might be increasing and increasing, we can also rule out the philosophical arguments about the first state of the Cosmos. That's why I do not accept this God Argument as a persuasive argument either, but it can still be good for sparking individual thought about the existence of God.
The Teleological God Arguments, or arguments for "Intelligent Design" first show a specific thing in the world that might likely be created by no one else than God, and afterwards, they make strong arguments that show that this is really the case. These strong arguments often include arguments for purpose, or sometimes more specifically, arguments for the point that God's creation was made to fit the needs of human beings, and hence the argument is called teleological, or purpose-caused (which term is related to Aristotle's philosophy again, who categorized causes to be material-cause, form-cause, effective-cause and purpose-cause, but mainstream Science did not accept purpose-cause as a law of Nature). Thus detecting a purpose-cause in the world not caused by humans or similar beings can mean some kind of a God Argument. As this kind of arguments can be made for different things in the world, these are many arguments, not one. I consider this kind of arguments quite strong, and I've even tried to improve it by research of purpose-causes in the area of Future Research. Personally witnessing a purpose-cause (like strange coincidences) can be a strong argument too, for some people, even if it is not available to the whole of humankind.
I also mention a God Argument that is rediscovered by me, I think. In ancient Greek myths the creation of the world is explained by Order born from Chaos, or something like that. For us in the 21st century, it seems natural that there are Natural Laws that govern the Universe, and many people reject God just for this reason, as the Natural Laws take the place of God in their minds. However, the following question arises here: who created the Natural Laws? If this world is like a movie, and there is no God, should it not continue as a multitude of random pixels not meaning anything, at any time? What is the force that keeps this together and in order? Who decides that the world should really continue the way it started, with the same laws? This can be a God Argument, I think, especially when combined with more philosophy. There is also contemporary philosophy related to this topic, which can be found by the keywords Fine Tuning and Parallel Universes, but this philosophy is still incomplete. Maybe the traditional Cosmological God Arguments could be joined with this argument about Order and Chaos, to make a sound general God argument.
7. Different God arguments follow:
A) Either everything exists or God exists:
- Either everything exists or not everything exists.
- If not everything exists, then there is a world that exists and there is a world that doesn't.
- A material world cannot hold in itself the distinction of existence.
- Thus existence comes from a Distinctor that is independent from the world.
- The Distinctor can be called Creator or Chooser in other words.
B) The God argument about Chaos and Order:
- If God does not exist, then every thing exists (see previous argument).
- If every thing exists, then this world can continue with any thing.
- However, this world is usually not Chaotic, but has Order.
- This Order must have been made by a Spirit.
C) God argument about the future research of the planet Venus:
- The size of the planet Venus is similar to that of Earth, and gravitation there is similar, too.
- Although currently, Venus seems to be less fit for populating than Mars, this may change by the development of technology.
- Thus, it might have been God's will that the planet Venus (and other celestial bodies) should serve humankind.
D) "Emotional" God argument:
- After humankind has risen from the animal world, it gets more and more power.
- The more humankind's power is, the more wrong it can do, even against itself.
- Thus humankind needs its power limited.
- We can imagine that God wants to limit humankind's power to good deeds.
- Thus, God can satisfy humankind's needs, and thus, the concept of God can be attractive emotionally.
- If the concept of God is emotionally attractive, then we can spend more time searching for more God arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment