|
The other day a religious person asked the originator of
the neutral-inclusive Norm why
'e was opposed to beliefs which
could not be proved or made plausible in an empirical or logical way.
The questioner tried to argue that such beliefs which are not grounded on a
'natural' explanation can nevertheless be totally harmless or even
beneficial. Since humans are mortal beings, susceptible to all kinds of
suffering, why did
'er partner in the discussion
not grant them the pleasure of believing in the goodness and greatness of
something or someone more powerful than themselves?
"First of all," the originator began, "people have the right to believe and
not to believe or not to believe anymore whatever they want, provided that
they grant others the same right to believe and not to believe or not to
believe anymore. And as far as human suffering is concerned,
i am not against anything that
will reduce it, provided that it will reduce it and provided that
what reduces it will not make others suffer or suffer more."
"When you suggest that human suffering can be alleviated or even stopped by
religious fiction which goes beyond the bounds of reason and experience,
you assume that the suffering in question is not caused or perpetuated by
religion, and you are offering people a coin with a picture on it.
The picture may, indeed, be a beautiful one of a garden created in love and
hope, where there's no pain caused by the workings of nature or the actions
of other human beings. But what you forget, or hide from me, is the picture
on the other side of the coin. Both in the stories and in the historical
records of religion that picture shows the hateful discrimination,
oppression, wounding and killing of other believers and nonbelievers; it
shows the mental exploitation and physical mutilation of children and
simple-minded adults; it shows the ignorance and obscurantism which slows
down or even halts scientific, technical and artistic advances."
The originator's religious opponent had to admit that unfortunately the
belief in the supernatural and the acceptance of supernaturalism as
something respectable was, in general, cursed with a less attractive side
too. 'E had to admit that, for anyone who wants to, it is as easy to
imprint the image of a god on the coin as it is to imprint the image of a
devil or some mixture of the two on it. Nonetheless, 'e said that one could
acknowledge the existence of a merciful Creator of heaven and earth and
that one could envisage that we, mortals, would later live on in His heaven
forever, without claiming simultaneously that there must be a devil and
that others deserve some hell for the same length of time. And 'e assured
'er partner in the discussion that those who long for such a heaven do not
necessarily create a hell on Earth.
Then the originator replied: "Just as neutrality or moderation is the first
victim of extremism and relevance or inclusiveness the first victim of
exclusivism, so veridical truth is the first victim of supernaturalism,
both of the supernaturalism which is to your liking and of the
supernaturalism which, i expect, is an abomination to you as well.
The minimization of all suffering is something to strive for, but so is
this truth. And as you refer to the belief in a heaven and to human beings
that are purported to live on after death, let me tell you how, more than a
millennium ago, a supernaturalist prophet tried to defend that belief
against fellow townspeople who had their doubts about it."
"The prophet in question taught, not unlike many of 'er contemporaries,
that there is a creator of all things, who put together heaven and earth in
six days, starting from a moment when suns and revolving planets and
therefore 'days' were not even supposed to exist.
And without the least sign of fatigue at that.
However, supernaturalism breeds supernaturalism, and 'e also taught
that one day all human creatures will return to life, after which they will
be subjected to a final judgment, which is, i hope you realize, at once an
exciting promise and a terrible threat. Now, when asked by the doubters how
it would be possible to make matter breathe and bones stand up again, 'e
answered that they could not deny that the same being that had been able to
create all things would also be able to recreate them and to make them rise
again. Thus, after first having topped the one unnatural belief with the
other, 'e subsequently made an appeal to the former in order to support the
latter."
The anecdote was an illustration of a cultural phenomenon which has
occurred all over the world from time immemorial: that those who choose to
follow the path of supernaturalist belief do not know the end, that they
may even be forced to continue following that treacherous path. They
walk on while piling one existential lie on another, throwing worse money
after bad. If lucky, they are united by the same creed, but more probably
--the other side of the coin-- they are separated
for eternity by serious schisms which result from the convenient but
competing religious claims sold to gullible people. (In the supernatural
market the one figment of the imagination is as cheap as the other.) For
the sake of pleasure or power they have always found room for another
far-fetched proposition, beneficent or innocuous, sometimes; obscure,
ignorant or maleficent in a multitude of other cases. For the sake of
pleasure or power they have not ceased abusing their language and raping
truth on their way, individually or collectively.
And this the originator of the Norm added: "It makes all lovers of truth
suffer".
58.NML-61.NMY
|