The Role of Religion (Summary of full manuscript) by W B Vosloo - Wollongong, February 2013

Introduction

Writing about religion is always fraught with pitfalls, because religion does not lend itself to casual rational analysis or discourse. It is based on what people believe about matters on which people hold strong convictions. History has only a few examples of people sacrificing their lives for the sake of a rational conclusion, but millions and millions of people have offered their lives on the altar of the beliefs they have held.

The text of this manuscript has been written with careful consideration for the sensibilities and beliefs of the faiths concerned. Despite the caution taken, it is possible that specific depictions are influenced by the convictions of the author. As such it may not always accord with the understanding of each and every reader. No offence is hereby intended.

At the outset it must be clearly understood that in this presentation, religion is regarded as a socio- cultural phenomenon that can be treated as the subject matter of scientific inquiry and objective analysis. This presentation is further based on the assumption that religion can be studied in a dispassionate way. In today’s world there is a huge range of intellectual tools which can be used to better understand the phenomenon of religion: archaeology, history, philosophy, psychology and even neuro-science.

Describing and analysing the role of religion is not meant to place religion in general or any specific religious belief under scrutiny. There are many arguments to be had over religions: whether supreme reality is a God, or not; the origins of “sacred texts”; the finer points of scripture interpretation; conceptions of the nature of God; the binding nature of religious commandments; is God’s creation a work in progress?; can a harmony be found between reason and faith?; what are the limitations of naturalism?; are mystical experiences hallucinations?: can practical reason, or scientific reason, or pure reason rule out faith as unreasonable? There are no atheological shortcuts to ending debate about faith. These issues, though important, are better dealt with in philosophy of religion texts.

Religion Defined

By “religion” is meant any belief system based on the idea that there is an omniscient, supreme (supra-human) deity or intelligence or force equipped with the capability to act as the designer, creator and mover of the entire universe, including everything in it – all natural and moral phenomena. It is necessary to realise that belief systems sometimes hold tenets which contradict one another. In addition, divisions within and between religious groups often lead to violent conflict and bloodshed.

Most religions are characterised by both dogmatic and ritualistic aspects. The dogmatic refers to perceptions of divine revelations and the ritualistic to the rites or ceremonies embedded in historical tradition but symbolically related to the beliefs held. Religions the world over show great 2 dogmatic variation in the beliefs held and in the relative emphasis upon the ritual. The dogmatic and ritualistic elements of religion normally find expression in organisational structures such as churches, shrines and priesthoods. The interaction of followers and priesthoods normally become the conduit of the revelations of the founder. The priesthoods pass it on by some process of ritualistically sanctioned endowment involving training both of character and mind. Because the priesthood is a holy estate, it is characterised by certain taboos, such as the celibacy rule of Catholic priesthood and other monkish orders and by rituals such as sacramental worshipping ceremonies.

The major religions still active in today’s world made their appearance during the past 3000 years. Judaism became monotheistic; Zoroastrianism enveloped the Persian empire; Hinduism penetrated India; Buddhism arose to challenge Hinduism; Taoism and Confucianism was founded in China; Christianity spread from the Roman Empire into Europe; and Islam took root in the Middle East, North Africa and South East Asia.

We know that since ancient times, religion has played a prominent role in the formation and development of communities and societies. The most important of these roles are the following:

- offering an account of the origins and nature of reality and humanity’s relationship with it; - offering a basis for communal identity, social affiliation, cultural cohesion and territorial attachment; - offering a foundation for moral values such as thinking and feeling about what is right, just, fair, preferable, true and universally compelling; - offering a sense of sacred mission exerting a profound hold upon people’s emotions and imagination while providing a fertile source of social and political cleavage driven by assumptions of a divine or supernatural imperative.

Religion’s Origins

Speculative curiosity is a universal characteristic of human nature. Since ancient times human beings have tended to speculate about things unknown to them. But the methods of inquiry and the body of accumulated knowledge only advanced slowly and ambiguously. The scientific method of inquiry only emerged in the middle of the second millennium of the Christian era. Before that time, people had to rely on other sources of knowledge: their imaginations or illusions, their observations or experiences and the utterings or teachings of persuasive individuals among them.

Edward Tylor, a pioneer of social anthropology claims that the primordial form of religion was “animism” – the attribution of life to the inanimate. It means considering rivers, clouds or stars as living things and seeing living and “non-living” things alike as inhabited by (animated by) a soul or spirit. This “ghost-soul” or vaporous force infuses everything – rivers, clouds, birds, animals and people too – with animated life. Tylor’s theory rested on the view that the primitive mind is imbued with the “psychic unity of mankind” which is embedded in the universal human nature. He saw animism not as bizarrely inconsistent with modern thoughts, but as a natural early product of the same speculative curiosity that had led modern thought. Animism had been the “infant philosophy of mankind” assembled by “ancient savage philosophers”. It did what good theories are supposed to do: explain otherwise mysterious facts adequately.

In Tylor’s view, the hypothesis that humans have a “ghost-soul” handily answers some questions that must have occurred to early humans, such as: what happens when you dream? In many 3 primitive societies people still believe that when people sleep, a dreamer’s “ghost-soul” wanders and has adventures the dreamer later recalls. The idea that the souls of dead people return to visit via dreams is widespread in primitive societies, even today. Animism also handles another enigma that confronts human beings: death. Death is what happens when the soul leaves the body permanently.

Tylor claimed that once early humans had conceived the idea of the soul, extending it beyond our species was a short logical step. They recognised the phenomena of life and death, health and sickness, will and judgment in plants and animals and, not unnaturally, ascribed some kind of soul to them. Once a broad animistic worldview had taken shape, Tylor believed, it started to evolve. The notion of each tree having a spirit gave way to the notion of trees being collectively governed by “the god of the forest”. This incipient polytheism then matured and eventually got streamlined into monotheism: “Upwards from the simplest theory which attributes life and personality to animal, vegetable and mineral alike ... up to that which sees in each department of the world the protecting and fostering care of an appropriate divinity, and at last of one Supreme Being ordering and controlling the lower hierarchy.” (Tylor, 1866, quoted by Robert Wright, The Evolution of God – the Origins of our Beliefs, Little Brown, London, 2009, p.14)

Robert Wright maintains that Tylor’s theories recently lost some stature on the grounds that it makes the evolution of gods sound like an exercise in pure reason, when in fact religion has been deeply shaped by many factors, ranging from politics to economics to the human infrastructure. Modern cultural evolutionism places more emphasis on the various ways that rituals, beliefs and other elements of culture tend to spread and expand by appealing to non-rational parts of human behaviour.

But Tylor’s views still hold up well today in that it explains how early humans developed religious precepts out of their efforts to make sense of the world. Early humans did not have the benefit of the insights of modern science to give them a head start. They had to rely on their own pre-scientific insights and conclusions. Subsequently, religion has been shaped by a diversity of forces. As understanding of the world grew – especially as it grew via scientific discovery – religion also evolved in reaction. Thus, Tylor wrote, does “an unbroken line of mental connection” unite “the savage fetish-worshipper and the civilized Christian”.

Robert Wright maintains that at this level of generality, Tylor’s worldview has not just survived the scrutiny of modern scholarship, but drawn strength from it. Wright says that evolutionary psychology “... has shown that, bizarre as some “primitive” beliefs may sound - and bizarre as some “modern” religious beliefs may sound to atheists and agnostics – they are natural outgrowths of humanity, natural products of a brain built by natural selection to make sense of the world with a hodgepodge of tools whose collective output is not wholly rational”. (See Robert Wright, op.cit. p.15)

To understand Tylor’s animism-to-monotheism scenario, we have to imagine how the world looked to people living many millennia ago, not just before science, but before writing or even agriculture. There are no detailed records of beliefs that existed before writing. All that is left are the objects that archaeologists uncover: tools and trinkets and, here and there, a cave painting. The vast blank left by humanity’s preliterate phase, is today filled by the literature on hunter-gatherer societies. 4

Using hunter-gatherers as windows on the past has its limits. The anthropological record contains no “pristine” hunter-gatherer cultures that were wholly uncorrupted by contact with more technologically advanced societies. The process of observing a culture involves contact with it and it is well-known that many existing hunter-gatherer societies had been contacted by missionaries or explorers before anyone started documenting their religions.

Although observed hunter-gatherers are no crystalline examples of religion at its moment of origin tens of thousands of years ago, they are the best clues available to generic religious beliefs for the period before around five thousand years ago. The anthropological record reveals at least five different kinds of hunter-gatherer supernatural beings: - Elemental spirits where parts of nature are considered to be alive, possessing intelligence and personality and a soul; - Puppeteers where parts of nature are controlled by beings distinct from parts of nature themselves; - Organic spirits where natural phenomena are considered to have supernatural powers such as snow-making birds, evil-predicting coyotes, etc; - Ancestral spirits where the spirits of the deceased are omnipresent and can do as much bad as good; - High gods where some godly being is in some vague sense more important than other supernatural beings or forces and is often a creator god.

The common element in all of these primitive perceptions of “gods” or “spirits” is that they purport to explain the otherwise mysterious workings of nature: why it snows, why wind blows, why thunder crashes, why dreams occur, etc. The dynamics of nature are explained in supernatural terms – at least in terms that today’s scientific world would consider as supernatural.

The irony is that hunter-gatherers would not label their beliefs and rituals as “religious” or “supernatural”. The use of this terminology is a modern phenomenon. Ancient Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, also had no word for “religion”. (See Robert Wright, op.cit. pp.17-20)

The World’s Religious Make-up

The predominant religions in today’s world are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. These religions have crossed national boundaries and their followers add up to millions of people and, in the case of Islam and Christianity, more than a billion. Other religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Taoism and Sikhism, are largely local and are inseparably related to small-scale traditional societies.

Although hard numbers in questions of faith are scarce, the Pew Research Centre, a “fact tank” in Washington D.C., issued a report in 2010 on the state of religious belief around the world. It estimates that around 5.9 billion adults and children – approximately 84 percent of the world population in 2010 – have some kind of religious affiliation. Even of the over 1 billion persons who are unaffiliated, many profess some belief in a higher power. Asia has by far the largest number of people who claim to have no religion, most of whom are Chinese – living in an officially atheist country. But 44 percent of Chinese respondents in the Pew survey claimed that they have 5 worshipped at a gravesite or tomb in the past year. China also has the world’s seventh-largest Christian population, estimated at 68 million persons.

The report of the Pew Research Centre states that in 2010 of the 5.9 billion religious believers the distribution of religious affiliation was as follows: Christian 31.5 percent, Muslim 23.2 percent, Hindu 15 percent, Buddhist 7.1 percent, Folk/Traditional 5.9 percent, Jewish 0.2 percent. Other (including Sikh, Shintoist, Taoist, Janoist) 0.8 percent. The median age of religious groups was highest (between 30-40 years of age) for Jews, Buddhist, Folk/Traditional and “other” categories. For Christians the median age was 30 years of age, for Hindu around 25 and for Muslims around 22 years of age. Around 405 million persons adhere to folk religions (i.e. not to Abrahamic religions or to Hinduism or Buddhism). Around one quarter of the world’s believers live as religious minorities. (See The Economist, December 22nd, 2012, to January 4th, 2013, p.96)

Doctrinal Foundations

The doctrinal foundations of the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all rooted in the Biblical Old Testament and crystallised over a period of many centuries. In the case of Judaism, the Mosaic texts reached written form much later than the actual historical period described in the texts. In the case of Christianity, which is based on the New Testament, the written texts were also consolidated centuries later than the actual events described. In the case of Islam, the Koran texts, based on utterances made by Muhammed, were written down much later than the events described. In all three cases the elaboration of doctrine and scholastic theology was a relatively late development.

Whereas Judaism is a particularistic, ethnic-centred religion focused on a strict definition of Jewish people as descendants of Israelites, both Christianity and Islam, are universalistic in appeal and have been carried to the far corners of the world by messianic missionary zeal. Many questions remain. Who wrote the Bible or the Koran? When was it written? Are the Bible’s and the Koran’s accounts of creation and history correct? What parts should be interpreted figuratively?

Hinduism, the oldest and most enduring of the Eastern group of religions, had no founding figure like Christianity or Islam. It is deeply rooted in and has organically grown on the Indian subcontinent over a period of at least three millennia. Many primitive aspects survived besides more highly developed philosophical systems. Like Judaism, it has a distinctly ethnic character and does not focus on being spread to other cultures.

Buddhism is more missionary in focus and has spread to various parts of East Asia. Buddhism is a name comparatively recently given by Westerners to the vast synthesis of teachings more than 2500 years old of a man called Siddhattha who was born in India. At the time of the original Buddha, there were no known materials suitable for writing or engraving so that most of his teachings had to rely on human memory and word-of-mouth transfer. It is not clear what proportion of the original message might have been lost or changed in the transfer process.

Taoism and Confucianism are both considered as religions and philosophies. Both are traced back to the period 450 to 550 BC. They originated in ancient myths and practices through the teachings of famous scholars such as Tson Yen, Yang Chu (from the schools of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tza) who were some of the original interpreters of Tao, the source of all being and not-being. What Westerners refer to as “Confucianism” is not a religion in the strict sense, but a traditional view of the propriety 6 and a code of manners to be respected by the Chinese gentry. Over the past two millennia, various schools of Confucianism have given revised interpretations of what such an exemplary life should entail.

Judaism

Judaism originated in the Biblical period of the Old Testament, around 3000 years ago and was gradually consolidated by Rabbinic Councils and enshrined in the Talmud. The first part of the Old Testament known as the Five Books of Moses (the Torah or Pentateuch), are considered by Jews to be a direct and most fundamental divine revelation as delivered to Moses by Jahveh (God) on Mount Sinai.

The gist of Judaism is the concept of Yahweh as the creator of heaven and earth, transcendent and free in absolute sovereign mastery. Yahweh took Israel unto himself as his chosen people through a covenant that imposed responsibilities on them and constantly exposed them to divine judgment. This led to a direct connection between sinfulness and disaster as punishment. But equally important is the promise of deliverance and redemption if they follow Yahweh’s commandments. Every part of a Jew’s life and body is under a divine charge.

In the tradition of Jewish orthodoxy, every letter of the Pentateuch is hallowed. This tradition of Jewish orthodoxy makes it difficult for its devotees to come to terms with modern Biblical scholarship and the findings of archaeological research. What is fact and what is fiction? Of the several historical accounts available, which are accurate? The form in which the Old Testament is available today, is a compilation of several “sources” and “codes”. Who transcribed the ancient texts and how accurate are they? The Hebrew Bible took shape over several centuries and the order in which it was written is not the order in which it now appears. It is not clear how many tribes of Israelites went to Egypt nor when they returned. There are also major disputes surrounding the identity and even the very existence of Moses as a historical figure. There is more than one Biblical canon: the Masoretic text, the Samaritan text, the Greek text (hence the name Pentateuch and the Greek names of the first books) and the Dead Sea Scrolls copied by the Qumran sect.

Today the Bible serves as a key document to reconstruct most of the Israelite religious history. It is a religious interpretation of their historical experience – not a prima facie record of actual history. It provides a religious interpretation of the Israelites’ experience and their perceptions of their interaction with Yahweh.

Judaism has a complex relationship with the Jewry. Judaism cannot survive without Jews because only Jews or persons converted to Jewry can become Judaists. Judaism has for centuries been handed down by many generations of Rabbis. Throughout, Rabbis have acted as the interpreters, articulators and guardians of the Judaic Torah. They decided who qualified to be a Jew and what the text of the Bible meant. This has given Judaism an exclusiveness which is inevitably frowned upon by other communities.

After the middle of the second century AD, the diaspora of the Jews took them to many countries. Everywhere they distinguished themselves as an isolated, closed community of assiduous traders with wide-spun family, religious and financial networks. As traders they became stockpilers, hoarders and accumulators of money. They developed a reputation as money lenders which raised the question of usury. They were permitted by the Bible to charge interest rates on loans to Gentiles, 7 but not to other Jews. Thus their charging of interest became synonymous with something hostile. It became calamitous for Jews in their relations with the rest of the world: they were disliked and mistrusted. As a result of their concentration on money lending to make a living, the Jews became an element in a vicious circle of financing activities and being disliked. It gave Jews a bad name and gave rise to anti-Semitic outbursts wherever they settled all over the world. The prime examples are the burning at the stake of thousands of Jews under the Spanish Inquisition and the ultimate banning of all Jews from Spain at the end of the 15th century, the ghettoing of Jews in Italy, Poland, Germany and Russia and ultimately, the horrible extermination camps in Nazi-Germany in the period 1940-1945. During the centuries of persecution, many thousands of Jews converted to the local religions in order to survive and prosper. Two examples of famous converts to Christianity were Benjamin Disraeli, who became Prime Minister of England and Karl Marx, who became the founder of the communist ideology.

In 2010, the world’s total Jewish population stood at around 13.6 million. Of the total, 5.7 million lived in Israel, 5.3 million lived in the USA, 483,000 in France, 375,000 in Canada, 292,000 in Britain, 205,000 in Russia, 182,000 in Argentina, 119,000 in Germany, 107,500 in Australia, 96,000 in Brazil, 72,000 in Ukraine, 71,000 in South Africa and the remainder in Hungary, Mexico, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Chile. In the USA, the Wall Street world of finance is largely dominated by Jews and so is the City of London.

Christianity

Christians believe that the Old Testament is “God’s Word” and is a record of his ordering of history. To the body of Jewish scriptures was added the writings of the disciples of Jesus Christ and the Epistles of St. Paul. Lists of “canons” were drawn up by the 4th century in the form of the “New Testament”.

Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth came to earth as the “Messiah” that was promised in the Old Testament. As the “Son of God” Jesus was to become, through his death by crucifixion, the “divine agent” to remove the barrier of sin between man and God in a victorious struggle over the powers of evil. Thus the Christian community had become the righteous heirs of Abraham, the New Israel. It follows that the Christian community, composed of Jew and Gentile alike, appropriated the role of the Jewish people as God’s chosen people.

In essence, a Christian Creed involves the following components: - a belief in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; - a belief in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; - a belief in the Holy Spirit, the life-giver, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and co- glorified, who spoke through the prophets; and in one holy all-embracing Christian Church; - confession in one Baptism for the remission of sins, looking forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

8

Since the Reformation started in the 16th century, Christendom split in two major branches: Catholicism and Protestantism. Whereas the Catholic tradition was based on hierarchy and the authority of the Popes, Cardinals and Bishops, the Protestant emphasis was on reading the Bible and on the individual’s personal relationship with his or her concept of God. Luther called this the “priesthood of believers” and this democratic spirit coloured most of the other Protestant sects that came after him. Calvinist congregations, Baptists, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists and many others, ran their own churches and selected their own clergymen. Protestantism, once the Bible was freely available in a homeland language, tended to foster the kind of debate and discussion which is the core of democracy.

Islam

Islam is the proper name of the religion traditionally called Mohammedanism in the West. It is based on the revelations uttered by the prophet Muhammad (Mohammed) who lived in Arabia around 570 AD to 632 AD. His revelations were collected after his death in the volume known as the Koran (Qu’ran). From the Koran, supplemented by statements and rulings traced back to Muhammad, a system of law and theology were derived in subsequent centuries. These combined with elements and precepts of Judaism and from other sources to form a distinctive Islamic civilisation which has continued to grow into modern times.

The Koran is the source of the guidance and instructions required by all Muslims for their daily lives: obligations of prayer, alms, fasting and pilgrimage; the definition of the basic institutions of marriage, divorce and inheritance; and the outline of the general structure of law. Muhammad preached that all men and women must surrender their will to Allah. In the manner of Christians they preached that a day of judgment would come and that they should so order their lives that they should not be judged unfavourably by Allah and thereafter be punished in hell with all its terrors.

After the death of Muhammad, the community of Islam was involved in a civil war over succession. The majority faction is called “Sunnis”. Opposed to them is the “Shia” who are now concentrated in Iran. The common interest of all Muslims requires of each believer to join with other members to “strive in God’s path” for its defence against internal and external enemies. This “Holy War” (jihad fi sabil Allah) has taken different forms in different ages. In recent years a range of secret jihadist networks have appeared, particularly taking advantage of the West’s civil rights guarantees of freedom of conscience, assembly and speech. In this way they are able to spread hate-filled messages and create fifth-column activists within Western societies.

Throughout today’s Islamic world, there are two opposite trends competing for ascendancy: Islamic theocracy propagated by fundamentalists at the one end of the spectrum and liberal democracy, propagated by a smaller contingent of securalists at the other end. The Islamic theocracy movement is currently the most prominent – even after the “Arab Spring” of recent years. The momentum of secular liberal democracy is sporadic and faces many obstacles. Islamic theocracy has several obvious advantages: their messages are cast in simplistic religious terms, are easy to communicate by sloganeering and they have easy access to the communications network around mosques and thus bear the authentic stamp of Islam. Secular democrats are committed by their own ideologies to tolerate the propaganda of their opponents, whereas the religious parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have no such obligation. In fact, they go to great lengths to persecute secular or democratic views. Islamic theocrats diagnose the ills of the Islamic world as due to infidels and their loyal imitators and declare it the sacred Islamic duty to crush the anti-Islamic secular movements. 9

Hinduism

Whereas Abrahamic religions generally teach that man is a special creation, possessing an immortal soul which is denied to lower animals. Hinduism maintains that all living things have souls, which are essentially equal and are only differentiated through karma, or the effects of previous deeds, which conditions successive re-births in different types of body. This is the doctrine of samsara which has given a very distinctive character to much of Hindu thought and philosophy. All life - supernatural, human, animal, insect, or even with some sects, vegetable – is governed by the same law: there is no absolute beginning or a unique process leading to an end salvation. The world is eternal and is constantly renewing itself. There is no particular being as creator or as saviour. Different systems of thought or cults have equal validity. The paths to salvation are many and varied.

There are a few central tenets or guidelines which are not arbitrary: - the cosmos is an ordered whole ruled by a universal law (karma) represented by a strictly hierarchical caste system and its purity laws; - the cosmic cyclical periods (calpas) are constantly ending and beginning again; - the natural order also acts as a moral order.

There are three powerful gods in Hinduism - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva – each representing different aspects or forms of the one original being in its activity as creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. Brahma is the architect of the constantly changing components of the world. Vishnu, the preserver, embodies the principle of preservation through ethical and heroic deeds. Shiva embodies both creative and destructive forces: storms, illnesses and death. In addition, there are also countless other deities in Hinduism as well as a complex network of cosmological units such as upper-worlds, netherworlds, hells and empty spaces. Time has no beginning or end. Depending on their karma, souls endlessly and repeatedly are re-incarnated.

The Ganges River itself is the utmost symbol of what Hinduism means. It is a gift of the god Brahma to the Indian people and its flow symbolises the circulation of life, death and re-incarnation over billions of years. Throughout India, temples abound as wayside shrines. Hindus invest much time and energy in their elaborate decorations, paintings and carvings. They are monuments to the process of renunciation – letting go of earthly things since you cannot take your wealth with you.

Buddhism

Buddhism is based on the insight that life means suffering and is painful because it is subject to illness, ageing and death. Life itself and the world around us are characterised by impermanence, an incoherent whole composed of a combination of parts that are constantly changing – combining, dissolving and recombining. Every individual is subject to this constant process of becoming and dissolving. The constituents of this process are subject to a strict set of laws (dharmas) which endure beyond death and form new combinations creating new “individuals”. There are links in the chain of aggregates (dharmas) and knowledge of these connections can usher in deliverance. The entire cycle of unhappiness begins with ignorance (the first link). The death of an ignorant person is inevitably followed by their rebirth. Only the final death means entrance to nirvana. A better rebirth can be brought about by good deeds (like the Hindu kharma) – a worse one is risked by evil deeds. 10

What counts are not so much the deeds as the motives behind them. Any action guided by reason (and avoiding desire, hatred or envy) will promote salvation.

The philosophy of Buddhism has been described as “dialectic pragmatism”. It implies a theory of salvation where all activities, attitudes and motives are aimed at a rejection of worldly gain by embracing self-denial. The “Four Noble (or Holy) Truths” are considered to be a means to reach salvation and a way of promoting contemplation and self-discipline. These consist of the answers to four decisive questions: - What is suffering? - What is the origin of suffering? - How can suffering be eliminated? - What is the path to eliminate suffering?

Buddhism offers an “Eightfold Path” to overcome suffering: the right view (understanding), the right directed thought (intentions), right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

The historical Buddha was actually named Siddhartha or also known as Gautama. He came from a noble North Indian family and is said to have lived around 560-480 BC. He gave up his comforts and fortunes to set his “Wheel of Teaching” in motion: renunciation of worldly things and dedicated to teaching how to overcome suffering. He left nothing in writing and his teachings were handed down in oral form. The main branches of Buddhism are the Hinayana (the southern branch prevalent in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand), the Mahayana (the northern branch prevalent in Tibet, Nepal, China, Korea and Japan).

Taoism

Tradition has it that Lao-Tzu (meaning “old master”) refers to a mysterious ancient figure who lived between 604 and 517 BC in the village Chu Jen (Hu province). His real name is uncertain and the writings attributed to him, the Tao-te Ching (Tao means world, hence “The Book of the Law of the World”), is considered one of the most seminal works of Chinese thought. The manuscript contains 81 short chapters, several of them in rhyme, and in the form of aphorisms. It offers definitions of Tao and the te (the powers or virtues of Tao) which is why the book is called “The Book of Tao and Te”.

Tao is the eternal source of all being and the force underlying everything – also as the law governing the world and the ethical guide for correct action. It is an eternal Ultimate Oneness, the highest principle of the natural and social world, the path, natural order – but at the same time nameless and indefinable. It can be understood as the universal law or the will of a Supreme Being – not as a static ideal, but as an active force. Tao is the primal source from which everything was formed. Out of the transcendental non-being, being emerges. This being, the Ultimate Oneness generates, within itself, the duality of Yin (dark, female) and Yang (light, masculine). From the dualism of this principle, the breath of life is formed, which brings about harmony between the two antagonistic forces. This triad of Yin, Yang and the breath of life then generates the Many (thousands of beings). In this way Tao is the source of all beings, nourishes them with its power and brings them to completion. The many opposites appearing in the world (good/bad, heavy/ light, long/short, etc) are mutually interdependent, but all require the harmonising power of Tao.

11

There are many interpretations of Tao-te, including wu-wei, which asserts that ideally people should withdraw from earthly things in order to live in harmony with Tao – in contemplative immersion of oneself in the conciliatory calm of self restraint.

Popular Taoism is more inclined towards the mystical and magical than the philosophical. It created a hierarchy of deities: YuChing, the god of heaven; Tai-chi, the personified Tao; and the deified Lao- tzu. These three gods of good fortune help people who trust in them, while in the underworld, the ten “Kings of Hell” reign. In time, popular Taoism developed an ascetic attitude amongst monks – leading to the monastic ideal of “creative non-action”. Other interpretations proliferated so that by the 15th century the Taoist canon included 5318 works.

Confucianism

The name Confucius is the Latinised form of K’ung-Fu-Tzu, which means “Master Kung from Fu”. His personal birth name was Ch’iu Chung-ni and he was born around 550 BC, son of a military commander. He was well-educated and showed a keen interest in China’s spiritual traditions. He worked as a teacher and counsellor and rose to become a Minister of Justice. He later resigned and wandered the country with his disciples for 13 years and then returned to his home in the dukedom of Lu where he died in 470 BC. After his death he was honoured as a teacher by the Han Dynasty. Centuries later he was honoured with the erection of a temple in each prefecture of China. In 1086 he was posthumously accorded the rank of a Chinese emperor and in 1906 accorded by imperial decree the same status as the deities of heaven and earth.

Confucius mainly wrote works on moral philosophy and state theory. His “writings” include contributions by his pupils as well as later followers. There are 5 canonic books attributed to Confucius: the book of “Changes”, a book of “Songs”, the book of “History”, a book of “Annals” and a book of “Rites”. There is also a collection of conversations between Confucius and his pupils, moral commentaries and writings by his student Mencius. Confucius’ philosophy of ethics starts with the assumption that man is by nature good and that all evil is the result of lack of insight. Educating people to understand virtue and harmony is of supreme importance. Holy and wise men should be regarded as role models, which is why respect for parents and ancestors is essential. People should be educated to respect truth, goodness and generosity, to nurture family relationships and maintain polite social manners. He also preached that the “Golden Rule” (reciprocity of treatment) should be followed as a guiding principle in human affairs.

Confucius did not evoke divine authority, commandments or revelations to support his moral principles. It is a rationally conceived, autonomous ethical system devoid of any metaphysical underpinnings. He was not opposed to religion but he avoided all speculation on the transcendental. He did, however, place particular emphasis on cosmic harmony.

As Confucius made no reference to divine beings, his teachings are not considered as a religion but as a corpus of moral philosophy. But the cults and rites of worshipping Confucius developed by his many followers and admirers have turned Confucianism into a religion. Chinese thought distinguishes between chia (philosophy) and chiao (religion), but also recognises the connection between the two. Confucius is considered by the Chinese as a Ju (scholar) and thus as an expression of China’s intellectual culture.

12

Confucian social theory revolves around the central concept of jen, which means “humanity” and consists of five “virtues”: dignity, generosity, loyalty (integrity), hard work and charitability. Afterwards he also added moderation, equanimity and honesty.

Religion as Source of Values

We consider things as “valuable” or “desirable” as instrumental values when they are conducive to achieve some purpose which we pursue. But if values are sought or appreciated for their own sake, as ultimate ends, irrespective of any purpose, they are intrinsic values. When it comes to the question which ultimate evaluations are right and which are wrong, which are laudable and which are reprehensible, we are faced with a conundrum. Science, per se, cannot take a stand beyond describing the consequences. The scientific method cannot help us to take an unconditional stand in matters of value judgements.

Some philosophers, such as Kant, thought that values must rest ultimately on natural laws, knowledge of which can be acquired through reasoning. Existentialists like Sartre and Camus argued that values simply rest on preferences and reject any form of ultimate anchoring outside personal preferences. Others, like the German philosopher, Arnold Brecht, also supported the view that ultimate values are based on preferences, but argued that certain kinds of preferences are universal, invariant “inescapable” elements in the human way of thinking about ethical issues, particularly about “justice”. Followers of various religions, anchor their values – distinguishing between right and wrong – in their religion: God’s will as expressed through one or other form of revelation. Variants of this view are found among Christian and Islamitic theologians. They derive their doctrines of “what ought to be” from religious sources. This source of values applies to the majority of people living on planet earth.

Religion and Art

Since ancient times religions have inspired man to express their feelings in artistic ways: in architecture, sculpture, painting, music and in poetry. Each form of artistic expression has created works of genius depicting religious themes and representations of religious events, symbols and figures. All over the world there are imposing edifices, mostly in the form of monuments, temples, cathedrals or churches, reflecting the creative designs of specific cultures and periods. Some of the earliest examples are the temples of Mesopotamia, the Hindu temples in South India and the geometric art of the ancient Greeks.

The great number of gods and goddesses in the Hindu world provided multiple pathways for Hindus to Brahma, the architect of many worlds. Hindu representations provide a rich tapestry of art in the form of architecture and sculpture. Temples abound like wayside shrines and Hindus invest much in their elaborate decoration. Hindus believe you can’t take wealth with you. Hence, letting go of things lies at the heart of Hinduism. Temples and shrines are monuments to renunciation – giving up of worldly things. Hindu art reflects their belief that everything is symbolism.

The Romans developed the arch, vault and dome, but also pioneered the creative use of concrete, allowing them to cover immense interior spaces without inner supports to build landmark cathedrals like St. Peters in Rome and the “Hagia Sophia” in Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church established a wave of cathedral construction throughout feudal Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. Many examples exist of Romanesque and Gothic styled cathedrals: 13

St. Trophime at Arles, Reims Cathedral, Sainte-Chapelle, Chartres Cathedral and the Cologne Cathedral. Medieval theologians believed a church’s beauty could inspire parishioners to meditation and belief. As a result, churches were much more than just assembly halls. The chief forms of inspirational decoration in Gothic cathedrals were sculptures, stained glass and tapestries. The Baroque period of the 17th and 18th centuries produced numerous churches, designed to overwhelm the senses and emotions with architecture of unprecedented grandeur. (See C. Strickland, The Annotated Mona Lisa – Art History from Prehistoric to Post-Modern, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, p.30)

One of the most talked about, exotic church designs in the world is the Sagrada Familia by the famous Barcelona architect Gaudi. His version of primitivism combined with Art Nouveau astonishes from whatever angle it is viewed. Initially it was intended to be a conventional building in the Gothic Revival style, but it became more exotic as it grew, and after many decades it is still under construction. In the chronology of tall buildings it is noteworthy that the cathedrals of Cologne and Rouen were the tallest buildings in Europe in 1880. Today the tallest church spire is dwarfed when seen from the rooftops of modern skyscrapers.

Sculpture also represents an age-old form of religious artistic expression. There are many examples all over the world: the Venus of Willendorf, the monoliths of Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean, the statuesque figures in the Greek temples, the revival of the Greek tradition in the sculptural masterpieces created by Michelangelo: the “David”, the “Moses” and the “Pieta”.

The Renaissance period saw a revival in the use of paintings in a religious context. By the use of the techniques of perspective and light and shadow depiction, artists were now able to create the illusion of depth and reality on flat surfaces. It enabled artists to tell stories in their paintings covering religious themes that were in popular demand. Italy produced a number of exceptionally gifted painters who left a wealth of paintings with religious themes: Michelangelo’s paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, depicting the biblical story of Genesis, Raphael’s Stanza, depicting a range of religious themes, Leonardo’s “Last Supper” depicting Jesus Christ and his apostles, Michelangelo’s depiction of “The Last Judgment” on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel. This tradition was carried forward by Spanish, German and Dutch artists. Of particular relevance is the Dutch painter Hieronymus Bosch who deviated from telling biblical stories to depicting the evil consequences of sinful behaviour. His “Garden of Earthly Delights” which is displayed in the Prado, Madrid, is one of the most remarkable paintings of the Renaissance period.

All the ancient civilisations – Chinese, Indian, Inca, Aztec, Egyptian, Greek, Roman – had more or less the ability to divide the different sounds they could make into higher and lower pitches, so tunes could go up or down. Modern music derives a good deal of its basic theory from the Greeks, calling the notes by letters of the alphabet in a primitive form of notation. But it was the Roman Catholic Church that set about codifying music systematically in the early Middle Ages. Up to that stage, virtually all music was part of a handed-down, oral tradition – most of which was improvised and never heard of again. Pope Gregory (540-604) was the first to order a compilation of and standardisation of the entire chant repertoire, but they could only write down the words, and the tunes had to be memorised by the monks. Then a Catholic monk, Guido of Arezzo came along in the 11th century and provided a map for musical notes – a virtual representation of sound – suitable for instant recognition of the relative pitches of notes by using his “sol-fa” system. He offered a model for the modern “scale” or musical ladder and his clear stave notation changed the course of musical history. It was now possible to write down a sophisticated variety of music and paved the way for 14 the emergence of a new, distinct species of musician, the composer: Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms and many others. The great composers of the baroque period were all closely associated with church life. They composed biblical oratorios that have remained monumental standards of classical music ever since. It is also claimed that the biblical oratorio paved the way for the emergence of the art of opera. Bach’s collection of keyboard compositions in the form of preludes and fugues in all the major and minor keys was an amazing feat and a landmark of European music history and among the most important pieces of music ever composed. Bach spent most of his adult career as music director of the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig. Much of Western music written since the time of Bach, follow the lead of the “Equal Temperament” of voices and instruments he pioneered. Without it even popular music could not function.

Religion as Source of Cleavage

Since ancient times religion has served as a binding force within communities – binding together people with the same values and aversions. Simultaneously religion served throughout history as a mark of distinction, giving rise to tensions and hostilities. The profound hold which religion is capable of exerting upon people’s emotions and imagination render these cleavages especially intractable. A common religion can produce both a militant cultural identity and a sense of sacred mission. Where religion regards sacred and secular issues as inseparable, co-existence of different religious communities within the same area or state becomes peculiarly difficult.

Often certain aspects of religious membership are of high visibility to the community at large. The Sikhs in India are identifiable by their uncut hair, bound up in a turban. This distinctiveness assures a consistent reinforcement of both a sense of identity with their group and its uniqueness with regard to other groups. The same applies to the head scarves, burkas, hijabs or other veils used by Islamic women. They act as conspicuous differentiating factors which also could act as annoyance to other groups. Religious taboos, especially dietary, may also provide a mark of differentiation. Throughout history, the most violent religious conflicts were those between Christian factions such as the Catholic-Protestant cleavage, the Muslim-Christian cleavage such as during the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the cleavage between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and the Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts in the Sudan and Indonesia.

There are many examples around the world where cleavages within the population (religious or other) threaten the breakdown of the state as an integrated political system. The breakdown of the political system could occur through the withdrawal of a segment of it, either to become independent or to join another territory – such as the break-up of India to create East and West Pakistan and, subsequently, Pakistan and Bangladesh. In most instances, such breakdowns occurred as part of post-colonial separatist drives or secession movements. In a few instances, irredentism, served as a drive to combine or unite areas to create a “homeland” for a religious or cultural community. The Malaysian Federation was split up to accommodate the separatist sentiments of Malay Muslims and Singapore Chinese. The Armenian cultural group pressed for the creation of an Armenian state to combine the Armenians living in Turkey, Iran and the USSR. The Kurds are still pressing for the establishment of a Kurdistan to combine Kurds scattered in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. In each of these instances, religious affiliation plays an important part.

The Middle East inherited the demarcation of several artificial or arbitrary political units which underlies endemic political rivalry and conflict. In Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, the most salient identity has been supra-national rather than sub-national. The result is that cleavages cannot be 15 easily solved by sub-national partitioning. In Lebanon, one of the world’s most culturally (and religiously) divided states, the cleavages are not geographical and therefore cannot be resolved by the simple expedient of fragmenting the state. The cleavages between Sunnite, Shiite, Druze Muslims, Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Armenian Orthodox Christians are not geographical. Re-creating an Arab Palestine distinct from Israel is an equally complex challenge with part of former Palestine precariously glued to Jordan and another part, the Gaza-strip, attached to Egypt on the opposite side of the artificially created state of Israel.

Although Buddhism is also divided into major rites such as the Hinayana (Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma) and the Mahayana (Ceylon, Nepal, Tibet, Mongolia, Japan), these divisions did not occur within territorial boundaries and do not lead to domestic conflict. However, where sects existed within Buddhism inside countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Ceylon, it became the source of violent social cleavage.

Perceptions of Deity, Heaven and Hell

In Judaism, God is called Yah-weh, but also other names, Jehovah, Adonai, El or Elohim. The fact of being without beginning or end, God is the Creator of everything from nothing, but also the Saviour at the end of time, and the omnipresent actor in history. Despite the omnipotence and omniscience of God, people are responsible for their actions. They have the responsibility and capacity to make choices. They also have the power of reason, the ability to understand the ethical order of the world and to direct their actions in accordance with its laws. Since all people are made in the image of God and are God’s creatures, the rights of the individual are limited by the rights of others. Mankind’s task is to actively shape the world according to God’s laws. Sin is rebellion against God’s law and the Divine order. Suffering, however, is a mystery in Jewish faith. It can be experienced in three ways: as punishment, as a test of faith or as the atonement suffering of the righteous.

For Christians, God is conceived as a trinity: God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit – all aspects of the divine. God the Father is seen, similar to Judaism, as the creator of all things and is the Lord of history and of judgment. God the Son (Jesus Christ) is the centre of Christianity and is connected with the salvation of creation and the redemption of humankind. The Holy Spirit, the most difficult to comprehend, can be recognised through its actions and it is the source of the power of the church and its sacraments. The paradox of theology is how and to what extent a good and just and omnipotent God is responsible for evil in the world. Evil personified, is depicted as having been created by God in the form of the fallen angel Lucifer, who fell from grace as a result of arrogance. Lucifer, or Satan, is God’s opponent or rival in designing the order of salvation. Satan takes advantage of human freedom, tempting an individual to turn away from God and to do evil.

In Islam God is called Allah, but is shared with Judaism and Christianity. Islam believes in the original revelation and covenant between God and Adam to send prophets to all peoples. Mohammed was chosen as Allah’s messenger and the last link in a long line of prophets such as Ebrahim (Abraham), Mosu (Moses) and Issa (Jesus). God is one and has no “son”, but Jesus will come again as a perfected Muslim and rule as the righteous King over a unified world. Everything that happens to humans is predetermined by God. This predestination has made the problem of human free will a controversial issue in Islam. Why does God lead some persons to the correct faith and thus to salvation and lets others perish through their lack of faith? The Day of Judgment is a central element of Islam. Death is a separation of body and soul. Similar to the Apocalypse in Christianity, Allah’s severe judgment is a supreme disaster. Allah then separates the saved from the damned. 16

Both the joys of Paradise and the tortures of Hell are depicted in extreme and sensory terms in the Koran. It is not simply faith that counts, but the practical expression of that faith. There is a super abundance of food and the pleasures of the senses in Paradise.

Hinduism allows its believers much freedom in metaphysical and philosophical questions since it is up to the individual to choose between a theist, pantheist or atheist pathway to the sphere of the deities. Hence there are almost countless deities in Hinduism. The philosophical views set out in the Sutras (scriptures), Sustras (teaching books) and systems of thought known in Sanskrit as darshana, are literally different ways of seeing the truth (drishti) and are merely non-binding guidelines. Other religions are seen as merely alternative pathways to the diversity of deistic spheres designed by Brahma, the architect of the numerous deistic spheres. The principle of Dharma, the law of the world, is that all living things are strictly different from one another and consequently have different tasks, obligations, rights and abilities. Hence among human beings there are different classes (castes) that are strictly separate from one another. The Dharma is the one eternal law for all living things, but it is expressed differently for the different castes and stages of life (ashramas). The diversity and similarity of living things result from the diversity of deeds in a formal life that need to be rewarded or punished. The circular process of dying and being reborn is without beginning or end and continues eternally. But the moral order of retribution for deeds carries within itself the possibility of living things gradually perfecting themselves and ultimately experiencing salvation.

Since ancient times, all religions have imagined conditions in Heaven and Hell. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Christians and Judaists all maintain theological depictions of Heaven and Hell – and those followers who are devout still believe in it. Atheists do not believe in it and agnostics are uncertain. Until the Renaissance period Christian artists depicted Hell to be like Dante’s inferno: devils and pitchforks, lakes of fire with brimstone clouds and wailing souls. Heaven, in contrast, was visualised as an ideal paradisiacal existence of pleasant meadows and the everlasting happiness of all the saved souls. The Hindu Hell, or Yama Pura, is the oldest known with its subdivisions of heated kettles and spikes. At the end of the torments of the Buddhist Hell, the purged soul returns to Earth as an insect or a reptile, entering the cycle again. From the Muslim Hell, purged souls eventually return to Earth. Judaism introduced the idea that good and bad should not both go to Sheol. The wicked should receive punishment as they deserved – especially if they have prospered from their wickedness on Earth. Conditions in Heaven were less clear-cut because the virtuous, like Job, had been struck with disasters and sores, commensurate with his deficiencies.

The shape of Hell is visualised differently by the various religious faiths. In most cultures it meant a hidden place or hole of fire. Dante described Hell as an inverted funnel of several layers, with each layer deeper and narrower than the last. The Buddhist Hell is similar but in Hinduism it has several mansions, large and small depending on the religious offences. Buddhism also provides different places for each particular sin. For all religions there is a perception of a trial of some nature at the entrance to the Underworld: the damned are separated from the not-so-bad. Then comes the long fall and the fire.

Modern biblical scholars have gone a long way to adjust the perceptions of Heaven and Hell. Jesus himself made no reference to “Hell” or “damnation” in the New Testament. St. Paul said that God would have mercy on everyone. The idea of a topographical Hell gradually faded out of Christian theology. Thomas of Aquinas in Summa Theologiae wrote that the anguish of the damned stemmed from the knowledge that they could never reach happiness. Hell meant ceasing to hope, or hopelessness. Milton, in Paradise Lost, said that: 17

“The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n” (See www.dartmouth.edu/Milton/readingroom/p1/book1)

In modern times perceptions of Heaven and Hell became less literally understood. Jean-Paul Sartre spread the idea that Hell is other people and the things they do. The Vatican also relented and redefined Hell as “a state of exile from the love of God”. For some Christian Fundamentalists in the American South, Hell is still a real place, as real as any specific place on the planet. Behind all the various perceptions of Heaven and Hell lie more fundamental questions. How can fear of Hell and hope in Heaven be reconciled? Can you have Heaven without Hell? Does the experience of pleasure or joy depend on escape from omnifarious pain or horror? Can people be inspired to do better without some threat of the severe consequences of failure?

Religion and Science

For many centuries followers of the various religions tended to consider their own sacred scriptures such as the Bible and the Koran as the primary source of knowledge. In the 17th century a new scientific movement emerged that challenged the Christian view of the world. People started to look at a new way of understanding the world. During the Renaissance the rising power of science forced the Catholic Church to silence the rebellious scientists by burning them at the stake. By the 19th century the Enlightenment had given rise to a new generation of scientists that pushed Christianity into retreat. Scientists like Darwin made discoveries that conflicted with religious doctrine. The scientific evolution placed individual curiosity and new ways of discovery above religious dogma. Science became the biggest challenge Christianity ever had to face. Science makes progress by challenging orthodoxy. Hence it tends to come into conflict with conventional wisdom. Often the orthodoxy challenged, is fundamentally religious.

Aristotle was the first philosopher to argue that the universe is eternal, hence rejecting the idea of a theistic creation. Rational thinkers continued to challenge the religious concept of a creation. In the 5th century St. Augustine confronted the discrepancy between the Biblical cosmology and the findings of natural philosophy by arguing that whenever solid findings seem to contradict a piece of scripture, the contradictory passage should be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Hence Augustine, in theory, would have had no problem reconciling Copernicus or Galileo with the story of creation set out in the book of Genesis. Centuries later, the Dutch-Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, also made the claim that the best way to find out what the Bible means is to drop the idea that everything it says is the literal truth. He suggested that the Bible should be investigated as if it were any other historical document written by people affected by the outlook of their time and place.

For many centuries the Church dominated the intellectual world until the start of the scientific revolution generated by the Renaissance and the age of Enlightenment. The first major breakthrough did not occur in Rome, but in Fromburg, a remote town on the Baltic coast of Poland in 1553. Copernicus made the discovery that the earth was one of the planets circulating around the sun and not stationery at the centre of the universe. Many others followed the scientific evidence- based method of Copernicus and soon came into conflict with Catholic doctrine.

So began science’s darkest hour. The “Inquisition” was set up to defend the church against heresy. Scholars who speculated about the nature of the world found themselves branded as “heretics”. In 18

1600 when Bruno was burnt at the stake his death was a devastating blow against science. It started a battle between faith and reason.

Galileo Galilei in 1609 introduced a new telescope at a Jesuit College. But because he supported the “heretical” views of Copernicus, he was prosecuted. By a vote of 7 to 3 he was found guilty. After the 69-year old Galileo was shown the instruments of torture he agreed to confess his error. But Galileo showed that science progresses by experimenting and that by testing ideas, facts can be produced.

While the Inquisition of the Catholic Church was stifling scientific progress in Italy, the England of the 17th century provided a more tolerant seedbed for scientific expansion. William Harvey, having studied in Italy, set up a research institute in England focussing on the human anatomy and physiology. Harvey brought back from Italy a basic understanding of scientific methodology: making observations, measuring results, confirming or rejecting hypotheses and so advancing verifiable solid knowledge. Scientists were given the methodology to challenge the written words – whether those of Aristotle or those written in the Scriptures.

During the 18th century, the scientific movement swept through the Western world. Isaac Newton and John Locke found that the laws of nature were there to be discovered, not only read about in the published word. It was the age of Enlightenment, the age of Reason. Ideas about freedom, democracy and science replaced religion at the heart of society. In 1750 Benjamin Franklin, son of a Puritan, suggested that lightning was just a form of electricity – not the wrath of God. He also played a crucial role in founding the United States of America as a secular state – as one of the founding fathers.

Modern science provided the biggest challenge to Christianity in the form of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It suggested that life on Earth evolved through a process of evolution by way of natural selection. Darwin, well aware of the challenge to religion posed by his theory of evolution, was very cautious in releasing it. He delayed publication for almost 20 years after writing it down. Darwin’s theory challenged the Christian belief that man was created in God’s image. Darwin removed the main argument for God’s existence because his explanation removed the need for some kind of divine intervention. The overwhelming evidence advanced by Darwin’s theory led the main Churches to concede that the world was not literally made by God, but they cling to the idea that God made evolution possible. It is based on the idea of a plasticine deity that could accommodate a variety of foundational explanations. This implies that the theology of modern Christianity is now fundamentally different from what it was four hundred years ago.

There are millions of Christians who still believe that the Biblical story of creation is literally true. They are the “fundamentalists”. In the USA, some fundamentalists came up with their own version of evolution, “Creationism”. A museum of creationist evolution was set up in Kentucky in 2007 to provide an exhibition of the evolution of the natural world according to the time-scale set out in the Bible – humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Where science contradicts faith, in the eyes of the fundamentalists, faith prevails. But today a growing proportion of Christians do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Like Augustine and Spinoza they prefer to explore what the Bible has to offer on a broader level: the wisdom of its commandments and the beatification in the teachings of Christ.

For hundreds of years, the Bible was not seen as sacrosanct – verse by verse – by orthodox theologians. The meaning of individual texts had been disputed over many centuries. St. Augustine 19 challenged the books of Genesis and its sequence of events. The Reformation itself was such a dispute. Chapters of the New Testament had been weighed one against the other in interpreting events in the life of Jesus Christ. Over the centuries of European history, more mental effort had been devoted to detailed debates about facets of Christianity than any other topic. There can be no doubt that the chronology of events in the creation myth of the Old Testament does not stand up to scrutiny. But eminent scientists themselves have been woefully mistaken in their own chronology of the evolution of all things in heaven and on earth. Scientists are equally confused about future trends about life on earth. Is it growing colder or warmer and what are the critical determinants? Scientists should rather cling to the Socratic docta ignorantia than the over-confidence of half- trained, dogmatic dilettantes.

Epistemologically speaking it is generally agreed that the scientific method is unable to establish the validity of value judgments. We cannot inter-subjectively prove any proposition of faith or belief to be true or correct. It is not denied that individual persons may have intuitional knowledge of ideas that may have plausible validity. But the point is that the truth or validity of such claims cannot be considered scientifically verifiable. Hence, religious references cannot be scientifically verified: the scientific method is unable to present proof for God’s existence. Those who continue to consider God’s existence scientifically verifiable, can do so only by using the term “science” in a broad sense which admits evidence of a type that, however convincing it may appear subjectively, is inter- subjectively inconclusive – scientia sive vera sive putative, sed non transmissibilis. Today, theologians tend to refrain from attempts to offer “scientific” proof for God’s reality, focussing attention instead on the inner experiences that cause men to choose God.

Another Protestant Christian theorist, John Hallowell, argued that Christianity explains the facts of human nature and existence better than any other theory, and that its fruits, i.e. its consequences, testify to its truth. He argues that Christianity regards man as a rational creature, endowed by his Creator with reason, of being capable of distinguishing good from bad, justice from injustice. Reason, as a supernatural faculty, enables man to distinguish good from evil, to recognise evil in the world as the perversion of human will. Human freedom is rational choice. The truthfulness of Christianity lies in its correspondence to reality and derives from the inadequacy of all rival explanations of life. It enables us to live in the present without either complacent optimism or helpless despair.

Although these thoughts may have played a role in converting men and women to religion, there is still a gulf separating these claims from an inter-subjectively conclusive scientific proof. Religious belief always leaves room for scientific doubt, though not for scientific refutation. Roman Catholic thinking has never abandoned the claim that God’s existence can be scientifically verified. Pope Pius XII’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of November 22nd, 1951, specifically maintained the claim despite advances, fully accepted by him, of astronomy and nuclear physics. Extended excerpts of his address were published by the New York Times, November 23rd, 1951, p.6. Many Catholic philosophers of the 20th century, including Jacques Maritain, continued to base their scientific teaching on God’s reality. Over the past 400 years it was found that the evidence of science often contradicts the Bible. Since the 18th century it was scientific reasoning that provided the driving force of civilised life. Will further scientific development make religion redundant? No one knows with certainty.

In recent years billions have been spent by the European particles-physics laboratory (CERN) at Geneva. The first task of CERN’s new machine, the Large Hadron Collider, is to search for the Higgs 20 boson – an object that has been dubbed with a certain amount of hyperbole, the “God” particle. Exactly what scientific contribution will flow from this huge investment is not clear.

In 2008 a further multi-million scientific study combining scholars from 14 universities was launched with the object of “explaining religion”. A range of disciplines from psychology to economics are involved. This ambitious attempt will last several years and will look at the mental mechanisms involved in sustaining belief systems, how religious beliefs may influence character development and collective benefits. It includes neurochemical research to find out how religious activity is spread across different parts of the brain and how the brain generates and processes religious experiences. Others focus on the links between religion and altruistic behaviour, collaborative activities, family planning, avoidance of smoking and drinking, healthier lifestyles and work ethic. Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists. If the propensity to religious behaviour is an evolved trait, then atheists are not likely to benefit from its potentially beneficial effects!

Atheism and Agnosticism

Both terms are derivatives of “theology” which comes from a Greek combination of the words theos, meaning god, and logos, meaning reason. Theology then is meant to explain a theistic worldview. Adding the prefix “a” forms another word for its contrary: a-theos or “not godly”. Just as “atheism” is the contrary of “theism”, theology has a contrary in “atheology”. Atheology is the intellectual effort to explain why a worldview should not include a god – it sceptically denies God’s existence – or anything divine or supernatural. (See J.R. Shook, The God Debates, Wiley Blackwell, 2010, p.13)

Pollsters around the world find that few non-believers prefer to label themselves as “atheists”. This reluctance probably has to do with the negative connotations attached to “atheism” as a dogma. As a result the term “agnostic” was proposed in the 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley as the contrary of “gnostic” – a Greek term for knowledge. Hence the term “agnostic” denotes a lack of knowledge about any ultimate reality such as a “supreme being”. Huxley offered agnosticism as a reasonable stance towards the overconfident dogmatic certainty of a religion or any overreaching conclusions of any other philosophy. The agnostic is sceptical towards both theology and metaphysics.

Agnostics and atheists are sometimes confused because both camps are similarly sceptical about supernaturalism. But despite the obvious overlap between agnosticism and atheism, there are important differences in their philosophical positions. The “atheist” clearly professes his/her disbelief in God and denies that God exists. The agnostic, in contrast, does not support such a dogmatic denial on the grounds of being an ignorant sceptic about the divine. Agnosticism has emerged as a non-belief alternative to atheism’s dogmas and religion’s faith.

Richard Dawkins has gained international notoriety as the “archbishop of atheism”. His major tome The God Delusion, is an irreverent book, accusing Jesus of having “dodgy family ties” and describing the God of the Old Testament “as arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist; infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sodomistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. (The God Delusion, Bantam Press, London, 2006, p.31)

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a popular communicator about science. He maintains that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists and Jihadists by promoting faith as a 21 virtue and by furthering an overly pious respect for religion. He believes any positive aspects of religion can be replaced by equally beneficial non-religious substitutes.

Dawkins examines the question why religion is so widespread. It is found in all cultures despite the fact that worshipping deities is such an “irrational and wasteful habit”. Dawkins concludes that religion is a by-product of mental abilities that evolved for other purposes – such as the way children are “programmed” to believe anything their parents tell them, which is quite useful in the light of all the useful information parents can share. But according to Dawkins, this transmission is vulnerable to becoming a conduit for worthless information that is passed on for no other reason than tradition.

Dawkins argues that the special appeal of religious ideas is based on its special compatibility with human psychology. Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration. These are the areas, Dawkins argues, that should be the targets of attack by logical firepower.

As for exhortation, Dawkins argues that religion is not a legitimate source of morality. But Dawkins is less clear on what he considers as a proper source of morality. He suggests as source a combination of genetic instincts which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation and a cultural Zeitgeist.

Dawkins concedes that for some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion. But these functions, he believes, can and should be fulfilled by other means. Dawkins argues that contemplation of the natural world can do the job as illustrated by the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But how many people can find consolation in quantum physics?

Dawkins proposes two strategies to expunge religion. First he wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child. He considers religious upbringing as a form of indoctrination that he equates to child abuse. Second, he wants to energise atheists to become less stigmatised and more electable to public office.

Religiosity, Atheism and Secularism

As explained by John R. Shook, op.cit. pp.1-2, “Religion promises a rewarding relationship with the supreme reality. Religions offer views about what supreme reality is like, how best to relate to it, and why believers benefit from that relationship. Non-believers don’t deny that reality is impressive, but they doubt that any religion knows best about reality or how to relate to it. Non- believers instead use some non-religious world view, some account of reality and humanity’s relationship with it, that lacks any role for a god ... Respectful and rational dialogue among believers and non-believers, and everyone in between, holds great promise ... (and) could hardly be a waste of time.”

Atheism (and agnosticism) is associated with an optimistic world view expecting reason and science to explain everything and make life better for people everywhere. They argue that the lack of religious belief does not necessarily cause moral and social deterioration since most of the advanced, healthy and peaceful countries in the world are amongst the least religious. But what are the sources of their civility? The truth is that most people around the world still harbour some belief in deity and argue that there will always be wicked deviants in any society. 22

Atheists often get blamed for secularisation, yet, the process of secularisation was well under way in the West long before atheists were strong enough to achieve the separation of church and state. Secularisation is not the same as atheism. It has to do with religion’s control over society’s institutions and events. Secularisation has been involved in the removal of direct religious control over major political and social institutions. It prevents governments from favouring a specific religion and it also protects religions from government interference.

Is supreme reality a deity, or not? Having an answer to that question would reveal the true nature of religiosity and what its role could be.

Key Determinants of Human Affairs - qua Scientific Understanding

Any analysis survey of human societies around the world reveals many similarities in patterns of behaviour. Most societies are in favour of peace and progress: a better future for themselves and their offspring. Each and every society has developed its own specific recipe to achieve a better future: some more successful than others for a variety of reasons. But a closer look at possible reasons for success and failure reveals distinct differences in the recipes or strategies followed. This does not imply that all societies have been strategising at some point, selecting specific courses of action or responding to specific calls of divine revelation. But all societies have been influenced by the effect of a variety of causal factors: natural, ecological, demographic, cultural, social, institutional, political and economic. The interaction and motive force of these factors determine the degree of success they achieve. Generally speaking, modern societies do not rely on the intervention of supra-natural forces, but most have been comprehensively influenced by religious traditions.

Within the analytical framework of social science the determinants of human achievements are interpreted as a combination of nature-nurture factors. Under “nature” is normally understood the particular combination of inherent qualities belonging to a person by birth: talents, abilities, instincts, characteristics, disposition and tendencies. Under “nurture” is normally understood the non-genetic external influences that modify, nourish, educate, train or condition individuals after their birth. Their accomplishments in the many spheres of life are determined by the interaction of their innate potential with the opportunities coming their way, whether structured, spontaneous or by chance. Some people of great potential have limited opportunities; others may not have the talents to exploit their opportunities or may simply squander their chances. Some are very fortunate, when, as Machiavelli said, “the goddess of fortune smiles their way”.

In the case of nations, countries or regions, similar forces are at work. A country’s economic fortunes are determined by a combination of natural endowments and human action, manifested by the interaction of its geography and its history.

Nature’s Endowments

The world is strewn with examples of nature’s inequality of “given” factors: latitude, climate, rivers and lakes, topography, mean temperatures, humidity, seafronts, mineral resources, arable land or soil quality. Nature’s unequal distribution of its favours is not easily remedied by human action, but humans can make a difference.

23

On a map of the world in terms of product or income per head, the rich countries lie in the temperate zones, particularly in the northern hemisphere; the poor countries in the tropics and semi-tropics. With a few notable exceptions, equatorial countries are largely stifled by problems associated with a low standard of living and a short life expectancy. The world shows a wide range of temperature patterns reflecting location, altitude and the declination of the sun. These differences directly affect the rhythm of activity of all species. Animals have adapted and evolved in their own way. Mankind generally avoids the extremes – unless driven by greed to exploit petroleum or minerals, or assisted by modern heating or cooling technology. In general the discomfort of heat exceeds that of cold. Year-round heat tends to encourage the proliferation of insects and parasites. Water distribution is also of critical importance for human habitation. Regular and predictable rainfall promotes the cultivation of food crops. Recurrent floods and droughts are serious constraints on agricultural development. It is no accident that settlement and civilisation followed the main rivers of the world: the Nile, the Volta, the Indus, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Ganges, the Rhine, the Volga and the Mississippi.

Human Action

The history of the world records the amazing progress of humankind, from the Stone Age to the Space Age. Looking into humankind’s development reveals the ideas, abilities and processes that created the modern world within the framework of available natural resources.

Civilisation today represents how far humankind has developed since the appearance of the first humans, or hominids in prehistoric times. By trial and error people acquired the knowledge and skills that would allow them to survive: which plants and fruits to eat, how to make weapons to hunt animals and protect themselves, to live safely in family groups, to develop special skills in a co- operative lifestyle, to plant seeds and to herd animals and to establish permanent settlements.

The process of civilisation gradually emerged as villages developed into towns and then into cities. Rulers with strong support conquered nearby regions and brought them under their control. Civilisation started at different times and blossomed at different tempos in various parts of the world. Some areas, such as the great plains of North America and some regions of the Middle East, Far East and Africa, did not develop civilisations because they could not be easily farmed. Soil types, distance from water resources, climate, all affected the nature of the civilisations that emerged in any particular area.

Warfare, exploration and the constant search for raw materials developed as trade increased between chieftaincies or principalities. New forms of warfare and weapons continued to develop as peoples such as the Greeks, Romans, and Vikings journeyed through and around Europe as well as west toward North America. The Chinese explored eastern Asia and the Polynesians roamed the vast Pacific Ocean. The Mongols dominated Central Asia and from there penetrated South Asia and East Asia, spreading the Muslim religion.

From the 1500s, exploration and conquest became major factors in increasing the wealth of several European countries: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France and Britain. These countries created trading networks that reached across the globe. Explorers from these countries created maps of most of the world and probed into the unknown territories of North and South America, Africa and Asia. Traders, soldiers and priests followed in their footsteps – and empires were built and eventually lost. 24

Economic historians like David Landes and Niall Ferguson highlighted the importance of “socio- cultural” factors as determinants in the affairs of men: in the ascendency of the West and now, also, in the advent of a new Eastern epoch. In his provocative Civilization – The West and the Rest, Ferguson argues that what distinguished the West from the Rest were the mainsprings of its power: complexes of institutions and associated ideas and behaviours. These are summarised under six headings: competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society and work ethic. Ferguson denies that this is simply another self-satisfied version of the “Triumph of the West”. He argues that it was not just Western superiority that led to conquest and colonisation, it was also the fortuitous weakness of the West’s rivals.

Ferguson argues that the expression “West” is more than just a geographical expression. It is a set of norms, behaviours and institutions with borders that are blurred. It is possible that “Western” norms, behaviours and institutions could have been embraced by Eastern societies as many of them already seem to be doing. Much of “Western Civilisation” is at any rate based on influences derived from ancient sources in the Middle East and further South East and East. The West is simply the pre- eminent historical phenomenon of the second half of the second millennium after Christ.

It must be understood that socio-cultural factors, whatever their source, are universally powerful determinants of societal trends and behaviours. The “socio-cultural” parameters refer to the complex network of interactions between individuals and between groups within societies: their customs, beliefs, morals, habits, store of knowledge and ways of doing things. These characteristics are acquired simply by being members of society: by living together. The impact of these socio- cultural characteristics or phenomena cannot be easily quantified or validated by rigorous empirical research methods. But it is simply a matter of observation that socio-cultural factors have real and comprehensive consequences for all aspects of societal life.

The Question of Providential or Divine Reality

Throughout history there have been numerous anecdotes of “miracles”: miraculous events have happened. But the causes of such events are not clear. For believers in a monotheistic supreme Providential Power or devotees of other Divine Powers, the explanations provided by the scientific study of the world around us are inadequate. Without necessarily denying the validity of scientific evidence or findings, they believe proper regard must be had to the role of Providential or Divine influence which overrides and determines all events and outcomes in the world of experience and physical phenomena. The various religions or belief systems use divergent explanatory systems to understand the scope and nature of Providential and Divine intervention in worldly affairs.

Over the centuries, some of the major religious movements have accumulated a large volume of theological literature to explain the dogmatic principles and precepts of their belief systems. They have also developed distinct rites and ceremonies to express their devotion to their belief systems. Of particular relevance is the question of knowing with any degree of certainty the extent of Providential and Divine intervention. How is this knowledge attained and how can its certainty or validity be established? Are these interpretations mere hypotheses, propositions of faith and belief or mere speculations not claimed to be inter-subjectively transmissible knowledge? When it is contended that there is “knowledge” of factors – based on “intuition” or “inward seeing” or “belief” – which are beyond empirical-logical proof, the answer of the “scientific method” is not that there is no such knowledge. It is merely that we cannot inter-subjectively prove it to be correct. 25

Belief systems are, epistemologically speaking, a completely different category of “knowledge” than science. Although all forms of knowledge can claim correctness, for any such claim to stand, it must be able to be verified, refuted, or must be left standing neither verified nor refuted. Since the Age of Enlightenment it has become the scientific convention not to blend scientific and religious arguments, because it was found impossible to prove the existence of Providence or the Divine in an inter-subjectively conclusive manner. In the pursuit of scientia transmissibilis, religious “truths” can, at most, acquire the standing of a scientific “working hypothesis”.

To speculate about things unknown is an activity characteristic of human beings since ancient times. But in modern times even theologians have increasingly refrained from attempts to offer “scientific” proof for the reality of Providential or Divine Power. They tend to focus more on inner experiences and by “presupposing” or “assuming” the reality of the Providential or the Divine.

Many a scientist, if asked whether they believed in God, would most likely pose a preliminary counter-question such as, what is meant by God? If allowed to define the word God or Deity in his or her own way, a scientist could find a modus vivendi with believers. If the term “God” is meant to refer to any kind of supreme or supra-human being equipped with the power to think, to plan, to act and thought of as the creator either of the entire universe or, at least, of the moral world of the “good”, then the scientist is likely to be bound by the impossibility to prove the existence of such a God in an inter-subjectively demonstrable and conclusive manner. However, if someone calls the universe itself, or the laws governing it, “God”, but denies that this God can think, plan, and act spontaneously, then the concept of Providence or Divinity could be used in a different sense than is commonly understood.

In line with the impotence of science to prove the reality of Providence or the Divine, all deductive arguments that start with the recognition of godliness and with the allotment of definite attributes to such a Providential or Divine Power, such as absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power, have come to be considered as either “non scientific” or “extra scientific”. Any form of metaphysical order or ontological reality cannot be demonstrated inter-subjectively in a conclusive manner.

Modern science has equally recognised that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and consequently, to disprove the absolute validity of ethical postulates founded in beliefs of Providential or Divine reality. The validity or not of such beliefs are beyond scientific demonstrability. But what science can do – within the parameters of its own methodological rules and procedures – is to study, analyse and demonstrate the impact or influence of specific religions on human behaviour. It can analyse and recognise the role such religion plays as a foundation for moral values such as thinking and feeling about what is right, just, fair, preferable, true and universally compelling as ethical rules. Since ancient times, religion has played a predominant role in the development of specific socio-cultural characteristics of communities and societies. It exerted influence specifically to their cultural ways of doing things: of courtship and marriage, customs and traditions, of ethical rules of behaviour and of socio-cultural priorities. A cursory glance at the international experience over the past three millennia shows that no other determinant has acted as comprehensively in the formation of distinct socio-cultural characteristics in societies as their views of supreme reality.

26

Bibliography

Brecht, A. (1959) Political Theory, the Foundations of Twentieth Century Political Thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Ferguson, N. (2011) Civilization – The West and the Rest, Allen Lane, London Goodall, H. (2001) Big Bangs – The Story of Five Discoveries that Changed Musical History, Vintage, London Hattstein, M. (1998) World Religions, Krönemann, Cologne Landes, D. (1998) The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Little Brown & Co. London Olson, M. (1982) The Rise and Decline of Nations, Yale University Press, New Haven Shook, J.R. (2010) The God Debates – A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester Strickland, C. (1992) The Annotated Mona Lisa – Art History from Prehistoric to Post-Modern, Andrews & McMeel, Kansas City Wright, R. (2009) The Evolution of God – The Origins of Our Beliefs, Little Brown, London Zaehner, R.C. (ed.) (1998) Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions, Barnes & Noble New York