A Thought on the Heavens and the Everlasting

Musings and opinions on religion, science, and the myth of immortality.

"I cannot abide by ignorance, or that which serves to promote it."

Religion once served a purpose. Back when we were loosely-knit tribes, hunkered down in the middle of a treacherous and wild landscape, still without written language and the full eloquent communication of ideas; there was darkness. A literal darkness, containing the savagery of an unknown environment full of predators.

Belief systems gave us commonality, a way to satisfy our initial curiosity ("What is that ball of light up there, and who put it there?" "Why do the storm clouds roar?"), and just as importantly a way to make us feel better in an inhospitable time. It gave us hope.

Then, we developed agriculture. No longer were we at the complete mercy of the elements, now we had techniques to control the environment and make it work for us. Now people worked together, cooperating in order to yield greater results. Some people rose to the top, and when they had to justify their position they co-opted those belief systems to validate their own authority.

Now, people who longer use the divine as excuse for their authority. We have money for that. Now we no longer need myths to explain the world around us, we have science (rational thinking and empirical experimentation) for that. Now, we no longer need commonality for thanks to global communications people have found compatibility through many other, more deliberate and precise interests. Now, we no longer need reassurances from despair, because frankly, we had existentialism that proved if humans have anything inherent at all it is the anguish of our own choices.

Religion was our fairy tale, told to us in our youth to help us sleep at night. It has served its purpose, but we are older, wiser, and more mature now. The "real world" is harsh and uncaring, but that is something we must accept. Rather than set Heaven or Paradise as our goal, we should seek to make our lives easier, better, and more 'fulfilling' in ways we and those after us can enjoy.

We tell our teenagers "Well, that's life." Just as well, we must tell ourselves "Well, that's existence." We are not chosen, we are not special. Why would one species of millions on a single planet be closer to a god? Why would one color of that species? Why would one nuanced set of beliefs over others?

Why must we think ourselves worthy of the promise of immortality, of the afterlife, when even the stars themselves must end? When even the universe must end? What makes a single human being more important than a star, or a galaxy?

Is it animation? That a human being is "alive" compared to the fact that a star is just a big lump of hydrogen? Even if it is so big as to be unfathomable when compared to a single human. That a human has ideas and makes things? Yet stars forges the elements themselves in its core. Is the notion that a star literally creates life, literally makes the world we live on, worth nothing? Is it sentience, is that worth more than an object that brings forth light in the darkness of space?

These are things science tells us. And the more we learn, the more we discover that we are not privileged. If the point of dogma is that God is right and man is fallible, then how can religion -- made from man -- be more right than the very facts we gleam off the universe, all existence, itself?

The point of faith is to accept things based on lack of evidence, lack of conclusion, and lack of reason. Religion promotes a faith that has been institutionalized and denounces threats to its stability and integrity. It does not promote discover, or creativity, and stifles the inner curiosity within humans that help define us; one of the few things life has that the inanimate does not. It teaches that faith will save us, not the tools we first created that made us who we are today.

Religion says that when you have faith, then you don't need to question. And that kills wonder.

If there is a God, and if s/he is a loving one, then like all parents it would know to let us go. To let us wander and find ourselves for who we are. Not to stay and be cooped up under its roof forever, never growing.

The notion of Hell (or any afterlife punishment) was made to scare people into staying close to the divine, saying that Hell is a place removed from the divine's light and warmth. How more proud would we please our god if we were to develop and shine with our own light and warmth? It is not hubris to think this; it is hubris to think out of all creation we are better than anything else. On the scale of the universe, if we are the most important things to god then god must not be very vast or powerful.

It is scary, yes, to imagine death without the afterlife. To have our immortality taken away. But it is something we must accept. Even if we can not be sure of oblivion, it is better to live without the safety net, because then life will be worth living. Life will become precious. We will be forced to reconsider violence because the notion of ending someone else, permanently, is too thorough a punishment to be taken lightly. We will see kindness upon others more often because this may very well be the one and only time we can cherish their company. We will value each day not because god made that day, but because the next could be our last.

Are these not what religions preach, anyways?

If anything has kept us from coming together as a loving god would have wanted us, it is religion. If anything has kept us from collectively growing and maturing as a nurturing god would have wanted us, it is religion. If anything has taught us to hate others because they are different, it is religion. If anything has stripped away the wonder for the luxury of false promises, it is religion. Are these not the things demons do, the very fiends our religious heroes warned us against?

Take away the shield of god and all that will be left is people. And people, once naked, will realize they are not so different after all.

Living a life without god or the afterlife is scary, yes. It can seem empty, yes. But it is not completely without faith. Because it makes us have faith in other human beings. It is not a life without happiness, because when chance does work in our favor we relish the joy it brings that much harder because we know how fleeting it can be.

It is time to grow up. It is time to be responsible and accountable. It is time to work for ourselves; not for god, and not for a heaven.

Author's Note

An opinion-piece, certainly not the first of its kind or the first to bring up these points, on the science vs. religion debate. While I strive to be a moderate in all things, even rationally I must strictly side with science and completely against religion on this one.

Reviews

[Idyllwyld]

@Ethan: That goes along with my point. Religion, at its best, still has some beneficial side affects (like morality).....but those same results can come from non-religious means (philosophy, law, common sense, etc). Meanwhile the comfort of "life after death" is just something that must be accepted as false. We can wistfully think about it ("A man can dream"), but we cannot take any of those ideas seriously at an institutional level.

It is analogous to telling kids that sorry, but the fish is dead, and there is no fish heaven. Sure, maybe they needed comfort before, but they're older now; they don't need to keep telling themselves that story in order to go about their lives. The very real possibility of oblivion, however unsettling, is something we must come to terms with, and the issue itself is unavoidable; just as anguish is inevitable when one has choice.

Meanwhile organized religion, at its core, preaches acceptance of its tenets as facts. These tenets are old, crafted to explain things when they were unexplainable. These tenets conflict with modern day observations and experiments. It's not that the tenets are "bad" but simply incorrect. Religions that are founded upon these tenets will always defend them, even in the face of empirical facts; they must, because their own survival depends on it.

If we live in a secular society where religion is merely background noise, but we advocate our sciences, then why are we still paying lip service? Meanwhile, if we side with our religions, then we will always be at heads with empirical science.

Religion just doesn't have a net worth anymore. Whatever benefits it has can be gotten elsewhere, and unfortunately its very nature serves as antithesis to developmental progress (not just technologically, but socially and culturally).

We don't need to carry the teddy bear for companionship and comfort anymore, we can look to friends and spouses (other human beings) for that.

It sounds radical, and it does so only because it goes against a paradigm of centuries, but anything 'religion does humans can do just as well', if not better.

[James Darrow]

Edit: ...Wow. I had a nice, long Objective and Subjective breakdown of this piece and the concept of religion. Then, the Cafe just ate it. Ain't that a peach...

In short: Religion, while a man-made object, can be a good thing when it is used properly and in moderation. We will never really know what happens after death, but ignoring life in favor of praising a possibly non-existent deity is a waste, no matter how you look at it. Afterlife aside, Religion was used to explain things in the past. Now it is used as a shield for the ignorant. In the future, who knows what role it will really play.