wchap35b.html
(7/23/99)
Copyright 1999, 2006

Aquinas is widely heralded for his "proofs" of God's existence, particularly his argument based on God as the unmoved mover. In his tidy world the foregoing concept seemed compelling as it has to generations of "religious" people. However, a modern understanding of the universe shows its inadequacy. Even from Aquinas' limited understanding the unmoved mover as God concept could only make sense by adding numerous secondary assumptions about the aspects of a perfect being and such. The concept of an unmoved mover, does not per se bring us to God. The foregoing is especially true of the Christian concept of God. Aquinas' approach requires that this unmoved mover have purpose. This is neither necessary nor desirable in an unmoved mover. In the natural world we see all around us examples of consequences without a purpose.

It may be difficult for some people to admit that as far as the relationship between humanity and the Universe goes there was a consequence, but no purpose. But, analysis of the problem leaves little alternative. If we drop a book and the book lands on a bug and kills it, we cannot deny that the bug's death is the consequence of our dropping the book. But, was the purpose of our dropping the book the killing of the bug? Perhaps, but the point is, it need not have been.

However, if a volcano blows forth a mass of molten lava which upon landing kills a bug, we would deem it ridiculous to ask whether it was the purpose of the volcano to kill the bug. Because a force has direction does not mean that it has purpose.

To have purpose, the initiating force must be capable of understanding that its actions have consequences. But surely an unmoved mover, if such there be, does not possess the attribute of consciousness. Therefore, it would lack understanding and purpose. And, because of this, though there may be consequences of its actions, there can be no purpose in its actions. Thus, though humanity is a consequence of the Universe, there is no compelling evidence indicating that the Universe has a purpose in producing humanity. We must, therefore, accept the fact that we are and ask ourselves if there can be meaning to that existence though there is no cosmic purpose. Since there is no cosmic purpose, meaning must come from what people are. Such meaning, therefore, need only be understandable within the framework of our being. Meaning of life then springs from the study of human beings and need not rest on anything outside of humanity. We are what we are, but we are a consequence of factors lacking purpose.

I found Aquinas' writing filled with "angels," "miracles," "saints," etc. When I tried to remove these meaningless, archaic concepts, I found that his whole system collapsed -- which is what always happens when one removes the supernatural from the systems of Christian philosophers.

Below is a quotation by Aquinas. It demonstrates the kind of non sequiturs and intellectualized mis-interpretations that characterize and invalidate most of his efforts.

Consider the case of two persons of whom one has a more penetrating grasp of a thing by their intellect than does the other. The one who has the superior intellect understands many things that the other cannot grasp at all. Such is the case with a very simple person who cannot at all grasp the subtle speculations of philosophy...it would be the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that they cannot understand it..."[25]

GOD AS THE EXPLAINER: In the preceding material, Aquinas uses "God" as pre-literate societies have always done; that is, to explain phenomena for which they have no adequate explanations. However, this is no longer possible for the thoughtful person. Not only is it inconsistent with all modern knowledge, it is also inconsistent with efforts to build a world fit for human living. If a person says that God causes the rain, it is an error. But, worse it is a debilitating error. For if God causes the rain, it is useless to seed clouds with silver iodide, dry ice, or anything else in an attempt to cause rain. God causes rain. If persons want it to rain, they must somehow convince God to make it rain. (I suppose the creative person would say that one way to convince God to make it rain is to seed clouds with silver iodide. However, that is the kind of thinking I am trying to discourage.)

If people say God can cure us of illness, that is an error, but of a different type. The statement may have some truth in it, but in a totally different way than the speaker means. People will die from a witch doctor's hex. Paralysis can be cured by the touch of a saint. The things have an actual psychological foundation. Bringing God into the picture adds nothing. Finding the real explanation is impossible because "God is doing it."

Individuals such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton helped us to discard the practice of using God as The Explainer because they discovered important explanations not directly dependent upon God. Darwin advanced the explaining into another sphere. Freud carried this explaining even further ("insanity" is a mental illness, not possession by evil spirits). But, there are some who do not realize that by retreating they have shown the fallacy of using God as The Explainer. They will still ask, "If persons deny God, how can they account for the existence of the Universe?" Persons who use mysteries (God of the gaps) to explain their position are in a precarious position particularly with the speed with which modern science solves mysteries.

However, as time went by it became obvious to me that the mystery of the Universe, also, is not solved by saying God made it. We would then have to ask, "Who made God?" "What is God?" "Why did God do it?" "Does God's creation of the Universe have anything to do with human beings?" "Is God interested in human beings?" "Is God aware that human beings exist?" "Is God a good or bad force?" "Does the God who made the Universe have anything to do with any of the gods of the various folk religions of Earth?" "Does God talk to people?" "Can people talk to God?" "Does God have anything to do with Jesus?" "With Christianity?" Etc. Each of these questions is at least as perplexing as the original one! So where we started with one unanswerable question, we now have at least twelve unanswerable questions. This is not progress because we are moving in the direction of confusion, not clarification.

The explanation that attempts to answer the question, "Where did the Universe come from?" by saying, "God made it" is like the following description of the crocodile from Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA: [26]

Lepidus: What manner o' thing is your crocodile?
Antony: It is shap'd, sir, like itself, and it is as broad as it hath breadth; it is just so high as it is, and moves with its own organs; it lives by that which nourishth it, and the elements once out of it, it transmigrates.
Lepidus: What colour is it of?
Antony: Of its own colour too.
Lepidus: 'Tis a strange serpent.
Antony: 'Tis so; and the tears of it are wet.
Octavius Caesar: Will this description satisfy him?

Modern cosmology has developed to the point where using God to explain the existence of the Universe is as untenable as using God to explain where humanity came from.

FEAR BUILDS GOOD PEOPLE: Another point of view that is widely accepted in current society is typified by the following quotation from D.A. Lord:

If there is no God, there is no lawgiver. The voice of conscience has no one to enforce its commands. One may listen to its clear commands; but, if one declines to follow them, who can demand an accounting? If there is no God, there is no rewarder or punisher that the smart and clever person cannot outwit and escape. If there is no God, then humanity is the world's supreme lawgiver and should feel quite free to scrap all the law with which they disagree. If the law is not to their liking, and if by force of brilliantly planned escape or the eloquence of shrewd lawyers one can outwit it in human courts of law, what is to hinder them? [27]

Also, the previous quotation of D.A. Lord implies that people are inherently evil or irresponsible, and unless someone stands over them with a big stick they are going to spend their life at revelry, fornication, laziness, unproductive activity, etc. I cannot accept this idea as true. The atheists I know live at least as moral and productive a life as the Christians I know. They work as hard. They are as concerned about what others think of them. They are more interested in improving society and the quality of human life because they do not look forward to an afterlife where they will be rewarded for the suffering they experience on earth.

However, perhaps more to the point, it is a Christian religious idea that one person can benefit in this life by exploiting another. Christians believe that the individual can only overcome the desire to exploit others through fear of God and the intervention of the Church. This concept is central to Christian dogma and cannot be dismissed or discarded. I believe this teaching encourages members of our society to give in to rather than resist ideas and behavior that come out of our alpha male/us vs. them genetic heritage. (See Chapter One, VOLUME I for more on this.) As a result we are encouraged toward utilizing exploitation -- economic, power, sex, and all other ways. To the degree that an individual realizes that they cannot, in fact, benefit from exploitating another person, to that degree will we have a society where exploitation is not practiced.

As pointed out in Chapter Two, VOLUME I in the Ways, a SFLIHM comes from nurturing, not exploitative relationships. A prime need in the world is a new perspective or paradigm able to help individuals realize what they truly need to live a happy life.

Also, it must be understood how Christianity fits into the issues of happiness and exploitation. Christian theories are important since Christianity is currently the religion responsible for binding the individual and society in the western world. Because of its central position its teachings, at a practical level, have monopoly status. Therefore, they are promoted in society as if they were true. Nevertheless, no person capable of consistent thought can accept all Christian teachings as being true. The foregoing is self-evident because the BIBLE is not internally consistent. It was assembled by individuals either incapable of, or uninterested in analyzing conflicting ideas and recognizing they were in conflict. As a result of this inconsistency each believer selects "truths" as if they were shopping in a market. They have little idea of the actual value of the "truths" they select. Some reject Heaven and Hell. Therefore, they may think they can engage in exploitation and thereby improve their life. Others may believe in Heaven and Hell, but think they can somehow escape the consequences of performing exploitative behavior by making a special gift to the church, etc. Others exploit without even realizing what they are doing. This happens frequently because good mental health and acceptance of Christianity are incompatible.

We must recognize the necessity of developing a Science of Religion that is aimed toward helping eveeery person become a Good Person. It would bind all individuals together as well as with their society in a sustainable way. Persons who are unwilling to accept the foregoing responsibility are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. A Science of Religion used to build a Good Community made up of Good Persons has as its primary goal to produce a solution to all the proverbial problems of the "human condition," including economic exploitation. These solutions will come about naturally once a Science of Religion comes into being.

In addition, it seems to me that average people or even above average people do not have the opportunity to really actualize the character they as individuals and as human beings possess. As Ralph Waldo Emerson says:

It is not that people do not wish to act; they pine to be employed, but are paralyzed by the uncertainty what they should do. The inadequacy of the work to the faculties is the painful perception which keeps them still [28].

After great thought, I have come to believe that both of these positions are equally wrong. Human beings are neither innately good nor innately bad. We are innately social animals. This means we desire to be part of a group and to be accepted by that group -- to be valued and esteemed. In so far as circumstances permit we will do what is necessary to achieve this acceptance. When we examine the terrible and tragic conditions under which most people live we must admire how noble an effort they make to overcome their experiences in family and society, and fulfill their positive human potential.

If one is part of a group that values "bad" behavior (e.g., a gang of thieves, a political group intent on achieving "power in order to exploit," etc.) -- all things being equal -- the individual will do "bad" things. If one belongs to a group that nurtures good behavior (behavior that considers the well being of all humanity) -- all things being equal -- the individual will do "good" things. Primarily, what is needed is not to protect society from "bad" individuals, but to protect individuals from their own ignorance and the effects of having been abused. Part of this is learning how to focus our genetic propensities in ways beneficial to our long term fulfillment. (See Chapter One, VOLUME I.)

Although, all major societies think they are working for good ends, up to this point none of them have been doing that in any clear way. In other words there are no Good Communities, or societies with the goal of becoming Good Communities. As a result persons raised in all major societies have pressures on them which encourage them toward "bad" behavior.

Some of these pressures are well-known and the effects clear. Other stressors have yet to be uncovered. An illustration of the first example is societies that use physical punishment in order to make children (and adults) obey the rules. These societies abuse their members in ways that prevent some persons from becoming fully mature. Some societies do not provide essential physical affection. As a result newborn babies, infants, and adults do not get the touching, cuddling, fondling that is the essence of the good life. These persons are very vulnerable and likely to engage in deceitful behavior. Some societies do not nurture self-esteem in each person. Members may be convinced that they are "bad" so they fulfill that role.

Other societies call "good" acts "bad" and therefore end up thinking "good" people are "bad." This is most easily seen in the area of sexual feelings and acts. In some societies sex is said to be bad, especially homosexual expression. One should not be surprised if the foregoing produces harmful effects!

LORD OF THE FLIES [29] is thought by many to be pessimistic because it implies that without civilization human behavior would deteriorate. But to me that fact does not produce pessimism, rather it produces optimism. If through civilization we can produce better human behavior, than that is very hopeful. Through culture we can overcome our "tribal" propensities and move toward actualizing our "wisdom" potential. That is the message that underlies Science of Religion.

Anyone who believes that an infant in the absence of the correct social experiences would grow into a person who typifies the virtues we have come to admire has close to zero understanding of what it means to be a Homo sapiens sapiens and should read Chapter One of VOLUME I.

So, when we talk about "goodness" and "badness," What are we really talking about? I think the below quote helps to clarify the issues:

"The essence of morality [goodness] lies in the quality of inter-personal relationships which can be established among people. Moral conduct is that kind of behavior which enables people to experience in their relationships a greater sense of trust and appreciation for others, increases the capacity of people to work together, reduces social distance, and continually furthers one's humane outreach to other persons and groups. Such behavior increases one's sense of self-respect and produces increasingly a sense of personal harmony. "Immoral behavior [badness] is just the converse." [30]

I saw that liberal Christianity is just as indefensible as Fundamentalism. Those with reasonable positions often bemoan the "immature concepts" of many, yet do not seem to realize how arbitrary are their "rational" religious views. Their mysticism, their cosmic consciousness, their "God as the ground of all being," etc. does not provide a foundation upon which to build, or maintain a scientifically based society, a Good Community.

GOOD-EVIL THEOREM: Another, more subtle aspect of the supernatural which blocks a clear discussion of the meaning of human life is the Good-Evil theorem. The Good-Evil theorem is the core of many social problems. The Good-Evil theorem proposes that the important factor in humanity's struggle is Good and Evil (rather than Knowledge and Ignorance).

Humanity has been laboring in a false direction at least since the event took place which is typified by Zoroaster. He asked himself, "What meaning is there to human life?" and answered his question by replying that, "Human life is a constant struggle between Good and Evil." Many people have found ingenious ways of stating and restating this doctrine.

We are told Jesus of Nazareth preached it -- "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Buddha was supposed to have taught it -- "From Good must come Good. From Evil must come Evil."

Individuals raised with the idea that Good and Evil exist independently of humanity think in terms of an Ultimate Reference System somewhere "out there." It is, therefore, easy for them to think in terms of grand designs that don't consider the welfare of the individual human being. As a result they readily succumb to their alpha male/alpha female and us vs. them propensities and accept the idea of privileged classes and lower classes as a reasonable way to organize society. In western society part of this is because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the more you suffer on earth the better person you are and the higher your place will be in Heaven. Naturally, it is the lower classes who do the suffering and have much opportunity to show how good they are and the upper classes who live in comfort and plenty.

Machiavelli's writings demonstrate the foregoing difficulty. He tells the Prince [31] how to gain power and how to keep it. But, what are the ends of rule other than maintaining it? Why should a Prince rule? Machiavelli sees the end as glorification of the State. If the State achieves power and glory, he does not mind that its subjects be slaves.

But powerful States are not the supreme goal for a Science of Religion. What is important is that individual human beings lead meaningful lives. Although persons can have their value enhanced by their contributions to a Good Community, they are actually diminished by their contributions to a bad society or a power-drunk Prince. Machiavelli thought it was important that Italy become a powerful State. But his reasons were not human centered. A powerful Italy was not aimed toward helping citizens lead better lives, safer from the ravages of their neighbors, or providing a secure place in which to practice their art and develop their maximum potential. A powerful Italy was its own reward. There was no need for any other justification.

NIETZSCHE AND THE GOOD-EVIL THEOREM: It also seems to me that it was the Good-Evil theorem that drove Friedrich Nietzsche. Eventually he came to realize that Good and Evil do not exist independent of human beings. However, he was so possessed by the concepts that he was incapable of seeing humanity as its own justification. Due to his own childhood abuse [32] he had so little respect for, and confidence in, humanity he felt their only useful role was to will themselves into becoming superbeings to replace themselves. At one level Nietzsche and I are on the same wave length. Nietzsche realized some hundred years ago that, "Faith in God is dead as a matter of cultural fact, and any 'meaning' of life in the sense of a supernatural purpose is gone. Now it is up to humanity to give life meaning by raising itself above the animals and the all-too-human. What else is human nature but a euphemism for inertia, cultural conditioning, and what we are before we make something of ourselves? Our so-called human nature is precisely what we should do well to overcome; and the individual who has overcome it Zarathustra calls the overman." [33]

Human nature has certain attributes and getting them firmly in grasp is one of the goals of a Science of Religion. However, one aspect of this human nature is flexibility. And it is through influencing this aspect of human nature that cultures achieves all the effects we see throughout history. It is this characteristic that makes it possible for there to be a "light at the end of the tunnel." This is why humanity (along with each individual) is a becoming. The "all-too-human" is what people are when they are still floundering "in the dark tunnel." Once they understand their potential and learn how to achieve it -- to become a Good Person and to help create a Good Community -- then humanity becomes a blazing sun. But Good Persons do not labor to raise themselves above the animals, but rather to understand those animal drives and focus them so as to help one become their best-self rather than their base-self.

All my thinking leads me to the belief that human shortcomings are due to deficiencies in society -- in our collective vision -- not in individuals. If we build a Good Community, it will be inhabited by Good Persons. I believe that human beings have no deficiencies that cannot be cured by involvement in a Good Community. As indicated earlier, certainly there is no "evil" gene. If there are genes that cause persons to function badly, it is society's responsibility to learn how to fix them.

It should be clear that Good and Evil do not exist independently from human beings. And, even from our present limited state of knowledge about psychology, it should nevertheless be obvious that there are only acts which interfere with achieving a worthwhile life, and acts which aid in its achievement. I believe that ignorance and knowledge are the factors in humanity's struggle, not Good or Evil. Good and evil can only be discussed in serious conversations to point out that they are meaningless concepts, except possibly as descriptions of behavior.

I can visualize no act that interferes with the achievement of a SFLIHM which is not an act of ignorance. I can visualize no such act that cannot be eliminated with proper use of knowledge. My previous statements may at first appear to be of the same type as the following ones: "No act is evil because every act ultimately causes good." "If one has enough faith, all prayers are answered. If God does not answer a prayer literally, She causes something even better to happen in its stead." "The BIBLE is a great book of prophecy which is often misinterpreted, but completely predicts the future if we could but understand it."

In the former statements the hypotheses are so stated as to be incapable of either proof or refutation by reference to observable facts. My ideas may initially strike the reader as the same type of statements. I hope further discussion will prove otherwise. I will attempt to lay out how we can use knowledge to improve the quality of all human life. The idea that Knowledge and Ignorance are more useful concepts than Good and Evil is easy to demonstrate. The "First Premise" would include the idea that God provides the meaning of life. However, as seen earlier the foregoing crumbles under careful study. We are then left with the "Second Premise," human beings are the source of meaning and purpose. It is clear that the foregoing requires knowledge. Everywhere we look we see ignorance as the cause of disease, starvation, cruelty, selfishness, and all other things that stand in the way of a meaningful life. We see how knowledge used with sufficient knowledge leads ever greater numbers of people toward a FLIHM.

If each person's life is to have meaning, it must be by use of knowledge. This knowledge must be used to build a System that will allow each person to achieve a SFLIHM.

Another important source of ideas was Lincoln Barnett's THE UNIVERSE AND DR. EINSTEIN. I liked the centrality human beings were given as the interpreter. He allowed me to see that objective reality must always be mediated and interpreted by human beings. Human beings are at the center of our stage because they are the sole interpreter and explainer.

Some of the ideas presented in John Dewey's RECONSTRUCTION IN PHILOSOPHY paralleled my own thinking so closely, I first tended to underestimate his influence upon me. His idea that we can show all prior writings of philosophers to be unsatisfactory to the degree that they failed to help humanity pleased me particularly, and this was one of the strands along with Barndett's, Protagoras, and many others that eventually led to the Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System concept.

The foregoing writers provided key parts of the foundation on which I started assembling a System. However, there was one more book of seminal value. This book was HUMANISM AS A PHILOSOPHY [34]. It supported my conviction that the supernatural is fantasy, that human beings are the authors of all ideas, and that an individual's earthly life is quite enough.

To discard the supernatural I define as the "One Right Way." This phrase was created a little facetiously in response to some folk religion's tendency to present their ideas as Truths. But also it comes out of the conviction that those who accept the supernatural will be diverted from understanding the universe and working for the good of humanity, and to fulfil their own best interests. In addition, they will similarly divert society's understanding and effort. There may be some valid objection to my use of the term, One Right Way. However, it has not been used without serious thought. It seems to be essential that one discard the supernatural (belief in magic/wishing). Such a basic, elementary, difficult, but important step must be expressed by a clear and uncompromising phrase. There must be no doubt what the phrase means. Most of my writing stresses the conviction that with any help at all the individual will move in the direction of their own best interests. But the individual can't move very far until they discard the supernatural.

I discovered the One Right Way because questions arose in my mind that supernatural explanations were unable to answer. I, therefore, doubted more and more until I went "Beyond Doubt." I learned that to deny God's existence is like denying that there is a red elf that sits on everyone's shoulder. It is weightless and possesses none of the other characteristics of matter; and, furthermore becomes invisible the instant before one would view it. I discovered that one must not deny God's existence, but one must deny the validity and usefulness of the concept. I found this to be true because I recognized that even if God exists there is no way in which that existence can be proven. She is as out of touch with us as if She did not exist. There is no provable communication between us. We cannot confirm knowledge about Her desires or ability to influence our lives. Those who "believe in God" have only subjective feelings, responses, answers. These feelings, responses and answers can most fruitfully be interpreted as inner workings of their own brains and bodies.

However, I eventually came to realize that denial of the existence of God (atheism) can become an unrecognized form of the supernatural. When an individual thinks of themself as an atheist and considers this as their world-view they cut themselves off from becoming a Good Person. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) said it best, "Atheism, even from the intellectual point of view, is a very imperfect form of emancipation; for its tendency is to prolong the metaphysical stage indefinitely, by continuing to seek for new solutions of theological problems, instead of setting aside all inaccessible researches on the ground of their utter inutility." [35]

When it is said that the One Right Way means discarding the supernatural, this means in all its multiple forms. Until persons throw out the supernatural in every form what-so-ever, they are halted in their progress. It does not seem unreasonably dogmatic to call a path this vital the One Right Way. Accepting the One Right Way does not mean accepting a particular world-view. It merely means keeping an open mind. To find a SFLIHM one must discard the supernatural. But this act in itself does not bring the desired goal. It brings no goal but freedom to pursue a goal.

A FLIHM is to a Not-Yet-Good (NYG) Community what a SFLIHM is to a Good Community.

A FLIHM is a positive feeling state that a NYG Community offers its members. However, because it is based on and/or incorporates ignorance it may be lost at any time. All cultures provide most of their members a FLIHM. This feeling state comes out of patterns of thought and behavior which taps into one's "tribal" propensity to believe in magic and the power of wishing. Therefore, without much effort it can become almost instinctive through constant repetition, usually, while the members are young and most impressionable. Members of such a society may feel their life has meaning today and lose it tomorrow. Today they may appear to be at the bosom of their society. But tomorrow because of misunderstandings, new insights, unusual circumstances, disaster, etc. be cast out and forced to struggle alone. When the foregoing happens, the inadequacy of the beliefs of the society are demonstrated.

A pre-literate society provides the direct contact and interaction with other people that normally gives each member a FLIHM. As a society grows and becomes more complex the opportunities are expanded for individuals to achieve higher levels of development. They are thereby able to utilize more of the brain capacity made available by the evolution of the language ability. At the same time it becomes more likely that persons will lose the FLIHM state because of the loss of social support. Loss of FLIHM can be recognized by a state of severe depression and/or self-abusive behavior; e.g., crime, general hostility, striving for power over others, self-destructive use of drugs and alcohol, etc. Every society has deficiencies and is, therefore, unsatisfactory to various kinds of people. Therefore, a FLIHM is unavailable to some members of the group sometimes.

Each society combines both positive and negative elements. Each has aspects that are hurtful to some members of the society and divert them from becoming their best self. At the same time the discoveries and efforts of each community help move humankind toward the ability to assemble a Good Community. Each culture has made discoveries and developed ideas which have helped other cultures to advance further than they could have on their own.

The deficiencies of Christianity are legion and many of them have already been explored. On the other side of the scale Christianity has played an essential role in moving humanity to the position where society can now adopt a more universal view that incorporates a more accurate understanding of the human condition.

Only a NYG Community establishes goals not aimed at the well being of every person. And failure or at least change of a NYG Community is inevitable. The individual counts most of all. Every organization -- society, government, corporation, club, etc. -- is a syntheses using combinations of individuals to attain goals that individuals could not achieve as well by themselves. But the only goal that justifies any society, government, corporation, club, etc. is to help in the effort to move all persons toward achieving a SFLIHM. Only individuals are capable of feeling; only individuals have goals meaningful in themselves. Everything ultimately depends upon individuals and is done for them. The individual is the only worthwhile unit per se.

.

.

.