3.3.2 |
WHETHER TO ADDRESS ONESELF TO A PRINCIPAL BEING |
The chance of getting rain does not increase by praying
for rain. From a purely physical angle praying is a senseless
activity. And yet, it would not testify to our inclusive stance,
if we did not recognize that there is more to an act like
addressing oneself to a principal being, whether it is called
"praying" or something else. Moreover, from the same physical
angle there is no essential difference between praying and such
an act as wishing someone a good time, for example, a good
night or a happy New Year. Both praying and wishing involve some
sort of request (even when only thanking a god this time). In
neither case the chance of fulfilment of what is prayed for, or
of what is wished for, (also in the future when now only
expressing gratitude) is, physically speaking, increased by the
expression of such a request.
Altho praying to a god may be a
theocentrist practise based
on the supernaturalist belief that prayers will have a positive
effect in an immediate sense (but not necessarily at the time
of praying), addressing themselves to a principal being can for
certain people under certain circumstances have a profound
symbolic and psychosocial significance. It can have such a
symbolic significance in that it emphasizes the special
relationship with the principal being concerned and the ideals it
represents. Those who formally express their hope, wish or
thanks thus try to symbolically come closer to an eminent being
which has, perhaps, ostensibly remained at too great a distance.
The act of addressing oneself to a mightier being than
oneself can have a psychological significance in that it may be
a way to express, and possibly relieve, one's feelings of
helplessness. Furthermore, the act of formally expressing a wish
together with other people, while everyone is addressing
'imself to the same
principal being may have an important social function which must
not be underestimated. (This can precisely be the strategic power
of a common proper name such as God for
the very dissimilar principal beings believed in by people of
different religious persuasions.) Even the most austere,
positivist rationalist cannot deny that those who address
themselves to the same principal being (or name) unite themselves,
that is, unite themselves under the same ideals (or under the
same inane concepts) symbolized by, or in, the image of that
principal being (or name). Maybe, the act of addressing oneself
to a principal being does not really create a relationship with
that principal being, but it does create a more intense relationship
with all others living under the same denomination. Our
veridicalism only requires
here that we do not take literally what must be understood symbolically.
The symbolic itself may, then, be said to have a psychosocial meaning.
It is not neutral to be prayed to, or otherwise addressed.
And it does not make sense to specially ask something from a
being that does not have a more than average power, or to
specially thank it for something it cannot have done, or cannot
have done better than the average other person or object.
Therefore the supreme should not be prayed to or otherwise
addressed, even if it exists or existed. Anyone purporting to
address the supreme being does in fact address an inferior
being. Not only should the supreme being not be prayed to or
addressed, since it has no creative or
nanaic power, it could
not even be suggested in a prayer or formal wish that the
all-neutral being aid those who have
fallen victims to
unananicity or
unnanaicity. The all-neutral
being and its image are not only superior to prayers but also to the
possible, nontheocentrist, non-supernaturalist analogs of prayers.
In our relationship with the supreme being we ourselves should,
similarly, be superior to every cult of requesting and thanking.
Whereas
the all-ananic is too high in
a normative respect to address oneself to,
the all-nanaic is a mighty entity which in
principle can help mortal humans and others when they need its
assistance. The vigor of the all-nanaic, or of a particular
nanan, may thus stimulate the desire in certain individuals to
more or less formally address themselves to this
Ananormative
principal being. Such an act or practise should be considered
purely symbolic. And never should anyone address 'imself in a
denominational context to a nanan that can or could address
'imself to others too as this is bound to degenerate into honor
exism.
Tho it may theoretically be possible to address oneself to
oneself, addressing oneself to something creates in the first
place a distance between oneself and that other being. This is
even more apparent when the other being is something to be
religiously honored or loved. The distance between the adherent of
the DNI and the two principal
beings will not be enlarged because of some requirement that they should
be honored; and, so far as the all-ananic is concerned, not because of
some requirement that it should be prayed to or loved. However, so
far as the all-nanaic is concerned the act or practise of
addressing oneself to, or perhaps 'loving', the all-nanaic or a
particular nanan, could be responsible for a greater distance
between the all-nanaic and the individual adherent. Such an
effect would be very regrettable indeed. For unlike the principal
beings of theocentrist denominations, the principal beings of
the Norm are not there to be
honored, loved or prayed to. On the contrary, they are there to share
their qualities and to become part of.
|