The Critique of Christianity (chapter 5): Árpád Fekete's religion

V. Árpád Fekete's religion

/ „There is too much painful suffering in this world, and there are too many dangers and compulsions or obligations, and it was so in Nature and in former times, too.” /

1. The epistemological basis of my religion is the following quotation: „Do not rule out the possibility of what may be proven true (later), and do not believe what may be (later) disproven.” (Do not believe that there are no wonders.)

2. Humankind and the other creatures in (or near) its living space would like to be happier, and for this, it matters what kind of Scientific, Political, Economical and Military (or fighting) system dominates this living space, so whether the rules (of the game) are good.

3. If the majority of humankind and/or of the other creatures in (or near) its living space were benefited by a supernatural wonder, which were also relatively just, then it would not be impossible for this wonder to happen. This can give the force necessary to change a bad system.

4. If somebody does no wrong to his or her environment, and does not reproduce (so does not beget any child), then it's not impossible that he or she will live a very long (maybe an eternal) life, and this can also be the reason why he or she should be thinking on improving the system dominating his or her living space, in case it were not suitable. (Otherwise, if he or she does reproduce, then he or she shall do it for his or her child, children, descendant or descendants.)

5. As the human species has the greatest power among the animals, human overpopulation has become possible, but this comes with sustainability risks, so limiting overpopulation is the interest of individuals and of the community, too.

6. Murder (homicide, genocide), duel, execution (capital punishment) and war are not the best solutions to limit overpopulation, for if these methods were applied too often, then this could increase the technological developments harmful to the environment, and it could speed up the unjust (and thereby wrongly directed) evolution of humankind (and of other creatures). Instead of killing, mutilation or making the enemy harmless can be better solutions, also because the enemy will need to spend additional energy to support the mutilated after the fight.

7. Contraception, condoms and other inventions to prevent pregnancy are not the very best solutions to limit overpopulation, as these are usually not produced by the same people who use them, and thereby they spoil the sacred relationship between two people.

8. Thus, the best way to limit overpopulation is probably by abstinence (and/or expressing physical love by embracing only). However, in the 21st century we can limit overpopulation by other means, too, based on the lesser of two evils principle.

9. In order to avoid many sufferings, overpopulation shall be primarily limited according to financial (material) potentials, thus the minimal advice says that those who are poorer than average (or poorer than the median), shall not beget more than two children. Humankind may make stricter rules if necessary (like the one-child-policy in China was). Just for this reason (too), the people's claims for social (financial) justice may rise, and this probably needs more equality of chances in the society.

10. Apart from overpopulation, the extreme development of technology can also mean a danger to humankind, for technology made nuclear and biological weapons possible, and it is also due to technology that Nature loses areas to the less sustainable modern agriculture and the consumer society, and of course, the majority of the environmental problems were also caused by some technology (besides overpopulation).

11. For sustainability, it would be good to limit technology in a way that is also comprehensible by the populace subject to laws. This means that they have to know that technological development has its dangers, and the common interest of humankind is to limit it cleverly and ethically. However, we should not forget that technological development sometimes result in a more eco-friendly economy.

12. Otherwise, for the long-term limitation of technology it is necessary to limit the spirit of nationalism (with Lebensraum conquering intentions), as hostility or competition among nations favours technological development. Accordingly, a global cooperation like the United Nations or the League of Nations seems to be necessary for the sustainability of the natural wildlife on our planet, after an intelligent being like the human has proliferated on it. The limitation of technology and other aims for sustanability and environmentalism can be (partially) achieved by international agreements, and these international agreements are among the ethical values of humankind like the eco-friendly religions.

13. Thirdly, technological development increased greatly due to the big supply and specialization of products, and this was made possible by the big market accessible to global trade. For example, the Industrial Revolution was helped by the discovery of America. Consequently, technology can also be limited by diminishing the size of the international „market”, and this can be facilitated by Separatism, Localism, and keeping of local Traditions (all of which are worth introducing, instead of Nationalism). The size of the market can also be diminished by limiting overpopulation, which was already mentioned.

14. Fourthly, technology can also be limited by making the economic system more rational. Even if a system of political economy had not as advantageous financial indicators as the others, and maybe it were meaning handicap, it would still be competitive if it made competent national defense and the acceptable level of general happiness possible. In the modern age, an important question of competent national defense may be provisioning, where the populace (working in cities) means more of a (negative) burden than of a (positive) resource, whereas in the old wars the soldiers could use the domesticated animals and reserves of villeins for the cause of feeding (the populace paid in nature instead of demanding). So, wherever possible, it would be worth putting more smallholders and artisanships into the economy instead of the corresponding big firms (just like the medieval liberation of slaves by fighting Christianity did).

15. It is worth remembering the political and economic systems known from History, and also their advantages and drawbacks, as this may protect us from getting into a system worse than the actual one in a crisis. For this, it may be a good strategy to keep some elements of the old systems in the new system as well, and accordingly, let some people work in a Capitalist way, some others according to state-owned Socialist Planned Economy, and some others be smallholders or artisans or self-employed. The essence is liberty (where it does not cause too much harm), and the ecosystem coming from freedom (or, economy similar to ecology).

16. As there are wonders, God probably exists, and God can also be approached by philosophy (building from below) using Natural Theology, Pantheism, Panentheism, or Philosophical Theism. The custom of praying does not really seem to be important according to philosophy or the better knowledge of the „Lord's Prayer” (Our father, Pater Noster). Instead of this, sacrifice (that is widely used by older religions) may matter more, where it may be worth sacrificing valuables and goods instead of animals or plants (as the latter can cause not only good, but bad effects as well). By sacrificing valuables, the unfair („unsportsmanlike”) advantages acquired by sin may be („karmically”) recompensed („by intentional lag”), whereas the continuation of sin with prayers and confessions (or spinning of prayer wheels) is less dear. Getting rid of our things may also give us some good ideas, and the order can also increase.