wchap35c.html
(7/23/99)
Copyright 1999, 2006

I began with tentative doubt. As my search to find a combination of reason and Christianity met with continued failure, my doubt became less and less tentative. In the first stage I was ashamed because I doubted and largely kept my doubt to myself. I could see that there were many things wrong with the supernatural view, but I still believed enough of the associated ideas to have a shaky foundation upon which to build an alternative belief system.

In the second stage, I expressed my doubts in intimate discussions with others without reservation, but I was embarrassed when I heard expressions of doubt made by others in public. I thought that people should not publicly say that the BIBLE is not divinely inspired or that God does not exist, etc. Also, sometimes when I felt quite alone, I would fall back into believing some of the comforting teachings of my childhood. But, as soon as I heard others talk about Christian or theistic ideas and concepts, the ignorance evidenced forced me away. I was compelled to continue my search for ideas that would not require persons to deny their ability to think and reason -- the abilities which most profoundly separate us from the other animals and lie at the core of our humanity.

In the third stage of doubt, I felt no embarrassment on hearing any opinion. I tried to evaluate the opinion on its own merits putting aside my own sensitivity based on being raised Christian. I could even defend what I judged to be the worthwhile and useful aspects of Systems built on the supernatural, for example the Mormon focus on community and helping each other.

The next stage consisted of rising above doubt (going "Beyond Doubt"). In this stage, I realized that it cannot be proven whether God exists or does not exist. More important, I realized that it does not matter whether or not She exists. Her existence or lack thereof has nothing to do with humanity. One's legitimate, ethical, honorable, accurate decisions about their life are made exactly the same either way. What makes life meaningful? A System to ensure sustainable feelings that life has meaning still must be erected by human beings using human skills, human understanding, human weaknesses.

Just the existence of God does not ensure human beings meaning per se. Given God, people might still be the accidental product of other God directed goals, or have been produced for other reasons, etc. So, in what way does God's existence provide people meaning? This is what the System that makes up a given Church has always tried to answer. In a universal sense, they have always failed because the results were not successful even within the society of origin. When "missionaried" out of that society, they were even less successful. Christianity has destroyed numerous individuals and societies and must carry the blemish of these acts. Folk religions must always fail because they are developed for a certain time, place, and group within a given society. Removed from that unique situation they become meaningless if not ridiculous and/or destructive. The attempt to universalize them, destroys them. I conclude that it is not possible to construct a System to provide a sustainable feeling that life has meaning by use of a God concept.

We can only know what we are and not what God is. I saw that it is important not that we inquire into the nature of God, but that we inquire into the nature of human beings. Beyond Doubt is acceptance of the One Right Way corollary; i.e., all God concepts are based on ignorance. It is not the denial of God's existence, but the denial of the importance of this question.

When I accepted the One Right Way (discarding all supernatural explanations), I accepted a path not a position. Within each person's life there is the evidence of their own erroneous ideas and beliefs. Sometimes these signs are clear to them. Other times they are only recognized by outsiders. The foregoing pages were presented not to refute the supernatural, but to show one person's path in doing so. The hope is that this will provide encouragement to others searching to make sense out of their life. I am not interested in destroying any folk religion. Rather, I want to build a Science of Religion that will be better for everyone. The ultimate refutation of folk religions consists of replacing them.

Human beings are capable of great atrocities, blind obedience, short sightedness, narrow-mindedness, etc. Modern people are no further advanced than the ancients in this regard. (Nazi Germany, the Ku Klux Klan, and the front page of any American newspaper are proof of this.) We can move farther in the direction of becoming our best self than persons of previous ages only because of the knowledge and experience they provided us. However, only a "Good Community" has the required goals, structures and priorities for using resources to provide the necessary assistance each person needs.

No individual can become a "Good Person" only through their own understanding. Even if this book were correct in every detail it could not permit one to immediately metamorphose into a Good Person, or achieve a SFLIHM. And it is not totally correct. In reality it incorporates errors in every concept and every proposal. It is my belief that one can only become a Good Person by joining or helping establish a Mentor Group. See "Organizing for a Good Community" in Chapter Three for more on this point. A primary goal of a Mentor Group would be to correct the errors in this book. However, all efforts rely upon organizations. Without these organizations all but the deepest, most insightful thinkers will probably not be able to move very far in the right direction. In the final analysis a part of the mind must be changed which individuals are almost powerless to change by themselves. But of course, the persons must want to make the necessary changes in themselves. So, who will set up the organizations? Who will lead us toward development of the Good Community? Will you?

Vital tasks remain to be done. Any interested person can help. Without this help the necessary organizations cannot be established and any progress will be too piece-meal and disorganized to be truly successful.

The goal of this book is to encourage the growth of such organizations, now. My primary concern is not for what will ultimately happen, but what is happening today. My intent is to bring about conditions with as little delay as possible which will ensure that all people achieve a SFLIHM. Results now, not in 500 years. Thus, religion will move out of its enmeshment in separate cultural groups dependent on mysticism, custom, and authority. It will move toward universality of all people, depending on cooperative efforts, the methods of science, study utilizing the relevant experiences of all people. Religion will thereby regain its role as the primary unifying institution. And it will assume this role for the whole world thereby helping each human being achieve a SFLIHM.

In Chapter Two the essence of a Science of Religion is presented. However, in taking that step we need to be clear about the place of folk religions in human progress. We must not look with arrogance on folk religions, or fault them for failing to meet the true challenge of religion. They did as well as could reasonably be expected considering the time in which they developed. They did, in fact, get us through our difficult "childhood" of the past 100,000 years or so since we evolved the language instinct. Up to that time we had "meaning of life" as a natural aspect of our existence. At that point we became capable of asking the question, What is the meaning of life? Since that time we have been looking for the answer. I believe humanity has been in the process of creating itself since that point out of our evolutionary resources. Chapter Two discusses the foregoing in more depth.

To evaluate folk religions in the same way we look at science is probably the best approach as Dr. James Woolley suggests in a paper on "Exploring the Case for Survival Based Values." Science changes its view of how the world works as knowledge accumulates. We should expect the same thing to happen for religion. Because of the contributions of folk religions we have now reached a position where it is possible to develop a reasonable, useful position -- a Science of Religion. A Science of Religion must draw from everything useful in all folk religions and everything else currently known. At the same time we need to recognize that many, possibly all, of these ideas will change as we learn even more in the future.

.

.

1. Sustainable: Based on science, knowledge and profundity -- open-ended. Universal in outlook. Promotes growth -- emotionally and intellectually. Healthy mind in a healthy body.

2. In a telegram sent to several prominent Americans.

3. The criminal justice system, economic system, world government, war, supernatural religions, child raising, use of natural resources, exploration of space, medicine, abortion, organization of society, etc.

4. "Good" here means most desirable. [I originally used this term until changing to "Wise." I've retained it here for historical reasons.] For me a Good Community is one that believes and implements the idea that human beings are the source of meaning and value and that assisting each member to become a Good Person must be the focus for society's ultimate concern. A Good Person is one who has achieved a Sustainable Feeling that their LIfe Has Meaning (a SFLIHM).

5. TRUTH: A shorthand way to say, all knowledge, total understanding, ability to predict everything. One can only move toward TRUTH, we can never achieve it. Frequently, persons imbed in this concept the presupposition that reality can be directly expereinced, or understood, rather than only interpreted. (See VOLUME II, Chapter X, "Science and the Search for Truth.")

6. NEUROPHILOSOPHY: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain, Patricia Smith Churchland, p. 13, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.

7. According to many persons Buddha did not promote speculative answers to mystical questions, but in fact he used many speculative terms that a modern thinker would have difficulty accepting. In addition many of his followers have not honored that approach. Tibetan Buddhism is a prime example.

8. Alan Cromer, p. ??, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.

9. THE UNIVERSE AND DR. EINSTEIN, Lincoln Barnett, p. 21, Mentor Books, New York, 1950.

10. I use the feminine pronoun to refer to God in order to demonstrate the hidden associations that exist when God is assigned a gender. I hope readers will utilize any feelings engendered by this apprach to better understand their own beliefs in order to change them if they desire.

11. FRONTIERS OF ASTRONOMY, Fred Hoyle, p. 354, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1955.

12. I don't know what Protestant denomination was involved since my family didn't practice brand loyalty within Protestantism. So, I'll call it "X."

13. THE MAN FROM NAZARETH, Harry Emerson Fosdick. GOSPEL CRITICISM AND CHRISTOLOGY, Martin Dibelius. Etc.

14. Especially, LECTURES ON THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION, Ludwig Feuerbach, Harper and Row, New York, 1987. Consists of thirty-two lectures given by him in the 1850s.

15. THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS, Albert Scheweitzer. THE HIBBERT JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT 1909, Williams and Norgate, London. John Allegro, p. 4 this document. Etc.

16. THE MEANING OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, Powell Davies, Signet, New York, 1956. John Allegro, p. 4 this document. Etc.

17. The tendency for objects to be perceived in an established and consistent way despite wide variations in the conditions under which they are viewed.

18. BOSWELL'S LONDON JOURNAL, James Boswell, edited by Frederick A. Pottle, p. 301, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.

19. However, if you have them open their mouth and pour the non-existent salt into their oral cavity, you might not reduce them to an absurdity, but chances are they would have a salty taste in their mouth!

20. MIRROR FOR MAN, Clyde Kluckhohn, p. 208, Whittlesdy House, New York, 1949.

21. See A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1993.

22. NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, George Orwell, p. 215, Harcourt Brace and Co., New York 1949. "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

23. Actually the Essenes and those responsible for founding Christianity and making it a universal rather than a tribal religion.

24. FIRST PRINCIPLE: Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System (HBAURS).

25. ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH (SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES), BOOK ONE: GOD, St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Anton C. Pegis, Image Books, Garden City, New York, 1955.

26. ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, William Shakespeare, Act II, Scene VII.

27. ATHEISM DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, Danial A. Lord, etc.

28. "Lecture on the Times," Ralph Waldo Emerson, Read at the Masonic Temple, Boston, 2 December 1841.

29. William Golding, publisher, city, 1964 -- a group of young boys, lost on an island -- alone without adults. [check internet]

30. "Searching for the Roots of Moral Decisions," Dr. Lester Kirkendall, p. x, THE HUMANIST, 7 Harwood Dr., Amherst, New York, Jan/Feb 1967.

31. THE PRINCE, Niccolo Machiavelli, The New American Library, (translated by Luigi Ricci), New York, 1953.

32. THE UNTOUCED KEY, Alice Miller, Doubleday, p. 73, New York, 1990.

33. THE PORTABLE NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Nietzsche, edited by Walter Kaufmann, p. 115, Penguin Books, New York, 1954.

34. By Corliss Lamont, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, New York, 1949.

35. A GENERAL VIEW OF POSITIVISM, Auguste Comte, (translated by J.H. Bridges), p. 50, Robert Spellers & Sons, New York, 1975.

.

.