|
| w |
|
Religion Versus Superstition
G. Lauren
Children naturally invent stories to explain what they don't
understand, stories usually containing some fearful danger with sometimes a
magic way of avoiding it. It is a natural part of the human condition to
speculate about what we don't know and to fear the worst. Sadly, we have little
reason to believe that uneducated adults act much differently than children.
Rather, in areas where adults lack knowledge there is no reason for them to
supplant the child's story. Every people has always had its gods and its
religion.
Today, when we think of 'religion,' by habit we think of
Christianity, and when we examine other religions we do so from a Christian
perspective as to form and function. This perspective has been implanted into
the Western mind over the fifteen hundred years since the end of classical
paganism. This bias blinds us to other possibilities.
Those early church fathers whose works and ideas have survived were
either middling scholars or scholars who used their scholarship as apologists
for the consensus view of Christianity, a view that was arrived at in very
mysterious ways. (See Gibbon: Decline
and Fall. VI and Bart
D. Ehrman: Lost Christianities:
The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.) In
their populist wisdom and amid the general decay of scholarship, they confused
the meanings of many Greek thoughts and words, including the Greek words for
'religion' and 'superstition,' and in this way what the Greek had considered
'superstition' became for the Christian 'religion.' This perspective has come to
be known as Judeo-Christianity.
The Greek lived with his gods. From first waking he was face to
face with the household gods and the death-masks of his ancestors; there were
other family gods inside and outside his house, each with its rituals. As he
walked along the street he would see the gods of his neighbours and pass
innumerable sanctuaries, shrines and temples where the gods lived when they were
in town; when he looked up he would see the great temples of the acropolis. Each
of these countless gods was a friend to be remembered: thank you for this day,
for this grain, for my daughter's happiness, … and each of these gods was a
reminder to be good. The gods were watching him. Sacrifice and thus religion
took place at an altar in front of the god's home, or temple. No act of
importance was undertaken without a sacrifice and referral to the will of the
gods by consulting a priest, augur or soothsayer. (Would it be presumptuous for
us to ask ourselves whether acts, guided by the gods, were any worse or any
better directed then our own, guided by probability theory and the 'intelligence
community'?)
By the eighth century BC the Greeks had come to agree that there
were gods and that they were beneficial to man. Any number of books “On the
Nature of the Gods” were written over the next few centuries and although these
books varied greatly, none considered the gods to be anything but beneficial to
man. It was inconceivable — against reason — that a god could be anything other
than virtuous, reasonable, just and therefore perfect and that which is perfect
is incapable of imperfect work or of doing harm. The principal question that men
debated was whether the gods took an active interest in man's affairs or if they
existed apart and ignored him, but they also discussed the form of a god, what
made him happy and so forth. The modern reader will want to consult Cicero's De
Natura Deorum, our most complete
surviving text. Here are several examples of classical thinking about religion:
The gods are personifications of things beneficial to the life of
man. Prodicus of
Cos. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.I. p.113.*
If there were beings who had always lived beneath the earth, in
comfortable, well-lit dwellings, decorated with statues and pictures and
furnished with all the luxuries enjoyed by persons thought to be supremely
happy, and who though they had never come forth above the ground had learnt by
report and by hearsay of the existence of certain deities or divine powers; and
then if at some time the jaws of the earth were opened and they were able to
escape from their hidden abode and to come forth into the regions which we
inhabit; when they suddenly had sight of the earth and the seas and the sky, and
came to know of the vast clouds and mighty winds, and beheld the sun, and
realized not only its size and beauty but also its potency in causing the day by
shedding light over all the sky, and, after night had darkened the earth, they
then saw the whole sky spangled and adorned with stars, and the changing phases
of the moon's light, now waxing and now waning, and the risings and settings of
all these heavenly bodies and their courses fixed and changeless throughout all
eternity, - when they saw these things, surely they would think that the gods
exist and that these mighty marvels are their handiwork. Aristotle. De
Philosophia. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.II. p.215.
That which is blessed and eternal can neither know trouble itself
nor cause trouble to another, and accordingly cannot feel either anger or favour,
since all such things belong only to the weak. Epicurus. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.I. p.47.
If there be something in the world that man's mind and human
reason, strength and power are incapable of producing, that which produces it
must necessarily be superior to man; now the heavenly bodies and all those
things that display a never-ending regularity cannot be created by man;
therefore that which creates them is superior to man; yet what better name is
there for this than ‘god’? Indeed, if gods do not exist, what can there be in
the universe superior to man? He alone possesses reason, which is the most
excellent thing that can exist; but for any human being in existence to think
that there is nothing in the whole world superior to himself would be an insane
piece of arrogance; therefore, there is something superior to man; therefore God
does exist. Chrysippus. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.II. p.139.
If we saw a handsome mansion, we should infer that it was built for
its masters and not for mice; so therefore we must deem the world to be the
mansion of the gods. Chrysippus. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.III. p.311.
A great deal of unnecessary trouble was taken first by Zeno, then
by Cleanthes and lastly by Chrysippus, to rationalise these purely fanciful
myths and explain the reasons for the names by which the various deities are
called. In so doing you clearly admit that the facts are widely different from
men's belief, since so-called gods are really properties of things, not divine
persons at all. Cicero. Cic. De
Nat. Deorum.III. p.347.
Regard the universe as one living being having one substance and
one soul. Marcus
Aurelius. IV.40.p.
The periodic movements of the universe are the same from age to
age. If there is a god all is well, if chance rules do not let yourself be
governed by it. Marcus
Aurelius. IX.28.
The Greeks, ever conscious of using the right word, applied the
word 'religion' to that duty of respectful acknowledgement which was due to
beneficial gods who could only help mankind. They applied the word
'superstition' to all fear of the gods and considered such fear irrational and
barbaric since it was clearly irrational to fear a benefactor who meant you well
and was incapable of harm. Even the Egyptians who worshiped gods in non-human
forms, worshiped beneficial gods.
Not one in
the catalogue of Greek gods was harmful to man. Momus, a minor, quarrelsome god,
was the 'worst' of the Greek gods, and not even the gods of Hades had any evil
attributes as does the Devil/Satan/Lucifer of 'Judaeo/Christianity.' The
Romans acknowledged Vediovis (anti-Jupiter) with a minor temple at Rome as well
as certain gods 'unpropitious' to the harvest; these gods were not worshiped,
but placated to restrain their forces. We still placate evil forces and
sometimes call it appeasement.
The moral ideal in Greek society was the man who strove throughout
life to be the best he could be by imitating the gods and their godlike
qualities: virtue, reason, justice and sophrosyne. To be a “good man” was to
live the good life, the life of a god, and thus contribute to one's family,
one's community and one's self. The idea of bribing, flattering or grovelling
one's way into a gilded afterlife, or heaven, was inconceivable, it had no place
in Greek moral thought.
What does a man gain by doing the right thing?
What does a man gain by writing his name correctly? The knowledge
that he has done it.
No further reward?
Does a good man need to be rewarded for being good, noble and
right? Does it seem such a small thing to be noble and good and happy? Will you
never cease to be a child, don’t you see that a man who acts like a child is
ridiculous in proportion to his years? Epictetus.
III, 24. p.201.
Many in the West have sought wisdom in the East in recent years. It
should be noted that none of the moral precepts of Confucius or the Buddha could
not have come from the Greeks and the Greeks wrote them down centuries earlier,
which is to say that Greek origins are established whereas 'oral traditions' are
not.
In the ancient world only one insignificant people worshiped a
selfish, vengeful, fearsome and non-beneficial god. This evil, anti-god
confounded the Greeks and Romans who could only think it was the creation of
barbaric, in-sane minds. After all,
what kind of men could live in a world without ideals? Of
all the gods to be worshiped this people alone invented a unique anti-god and
dedicated themselves to placating his anger in a bargain for his desired
support. Evil is not evil to the evil
man, for him it is the good he has chosen. They
called themselves 'His Chosen,' the unique, the exclusive worshipers of the god
of evil. No other ancient people worshiped a god for the chief purpose of
tormenting their enemies, for indeed this people never once over the course of
history had a friend. Moreover, this people never claimed there was only one
god, but they did chose to worship only one god, the evil one, and abandoned the
worship of the good gods to their enemies.
To cringe and swear faith before a bungling god because he made you
what you are is a tale out of Tolkien. Confessed guilt at birth was
inconceivable to a Greek; he was unable to comprehend that a god could create a
creature with flaws. To the Greek any guilt was of his own making, his bad
choice, his burden to be carried in his god-like portion, the conscience. Virtue
permeates everything the Greeks wrote, poetry, theatre, history, philosophy,
medicine; there is no mention of virtue in the Old Testament. All thought of
virtue is absent. The worship of evil, slaughter for personal gain, diet,
self-mutilation, dress, all placed The Chosen as outsiders to the balance of
mankind and in this way the land of milk and honey (one of the poorest stretches
of land in the Middle East and virtually uninhabited at the arrival of the
Hebrews),became a ghetto by choice.
The pagans never fought a war for religion. Apart from superstition, has there
ever been any other source of conflict that cannot be justified by reason?
Religious conflict is always unreasoned, pointless, without cause. All Jewish
wars have been religious.
To speak of Judaeo/Christian is to speak of alien poles, of black
and white or to describe the moral spectrum from bad to good. The two parts of
the Bible were meant to be understood as a transformation from the evil ways of
the Old Testament pharisees and prophets to the good ways of the new religion.
From the worship of evil to the worship of good.
The Old Testament, a catalogue of sins, is the invention of a people without
qualities, without virtues — misfits who set themselves apart from other
peoples, who alone chose not to imitate the virtues of the gods and please them,
but rather to despise the good and worship the evil. Inasmuch as there have
always been ignorant, misguided and even bad people in the world the sect
maintained itself.
The New Testament, a catalogue of virtues, is the story of a small
band of Jews who rebelled against the established cult of evil of their fathers
and sought to lead the Jews to a religion of righteousness and the worship of a
good god.
From a jealous, vengeful, fearful god to a good and forgiving god.
To consider the terms Judaeo and Christian in any way synonymous is to confound
history and reason. Over the centuries the Church has engendered numerous saints
by encouraging goodness. The Jews have no saints. No Jewish leader, not Moses,
not Solomon, not David is anywhere described as a good man; they are described
as successful, self-enriching. Both Jews and Christians commend charity;
Christian charities have benefited all men whereas Jewish charities benefit only
Jews. The Jews have always seen the Christians as detested betrayers of Judaism
while the Christians have time and again naïvely forgiven the Jews and sought to
bring them into harmony with the True God. In such a conflict the good man
always loses; being good he always forgives while the bad man exploits his
virtue as a weakness. The Greeks never tired of asking why, if there is a god,
he rewards evil and not good. Perhaps it is because the gods know better how to
'reward' than we do and each time the good man 'loses' he learns a little and
becomes a little better, while the bad man learns nothing from his false gain.
The good man can never lose. He engages in no contest where he is
not superior. Take everything he has and he will still have what he wishes to
have and he will still avoid what he wishes to. Epictetus.III,
6. pp.45-49.
Do you sometimes think Providence is unjust and does not follow
reason? Whose reason? Do you think the unjust man gains advantages over the just
man?
If
you think money is an advantage, Providence is most just in favouring the unjust
man for in this he is better than you because he flatters, is shameless and
vigilant. Is it surprising that he should be rich? Now see whether he is better
than you at being trustworthy and self-respecting and you will find he is not
and where you are superior to him you will find that you are better off.
How
can you consider him blessed who gets what he has by means that you consider
beneath you? What is the injustice in Providence giving the greater reward to
those who are better? Is it not better to be upstanding than to be rich? How can
you be indignant at receiving the better condition? Epictetus
III. 17. p.109.
Many modern Christians are ignoring Christ and looking for their
religion and their sermon lessons in the Old Testament. The beliefs that guide
their daily lives are ever closer to a mutant form of Judaism than to any
teaching of Christ. Christ never spoke about revenge, birth control, evolution,
heretics, or gay marriage; nor did Paul. The Old Testament is like a Trojan
horse that introduces pre-Christian superstition into Christianity. Christ's
saying are few, simple, and divine; the rest, drawn from the Old Testament, is
mystical half-truths that can be used to buttress any wild thought with or
without the cheeky black box of 'oral tradition.' How ironic, how paradoxical
that in Western Civilisation's
transformation from paganism to Christianity man's religious quest for
Righteousness came to be abandoned and replaced by a superstitious quest for
Faith. It was here that Western civilization jumped the rails that Confucians
and Buddhists still follow.
As always,
the Greeks were able to make sense out of our permanent state of conflict and
dissension by arguing that the world needs bad people to validate the good.
There is
nothing more foolish than those men who think that good could exist, if there
were at the same time no evil. For since good is the opposite of evil, it
necessarily follows that both must exist in opposition to each other, supported
as it were by mutual adverse forces; since no opposite is conceivable without
something to oppose it. For how could there be an idea of justice, if there were
no acts of injustice? What else is justice than the absence of injustice? How
too can courage be understood except by contrast with cowardice? Or temperance
except by contrast with intemperance? How also could there be wisdom, if folly
did not exist as its opposite? Therefore, why do not the fools also wish there
may be truth, but no falsehood? For it is the same way that good and evil exist,
happiness and unhappiness, pain and pleasure. For as Plato says[Phaedo. 3.], they
are bound one to the other by their opposing extremes; if you take one away, you
will have removed both. Chrysippus. A.G.Attic
Nights. 2.VII.I. p.91.
That which is
in opposition is in concert, and from things that differ comes the most
beautiful harmony. Heraclitus.
Freeman trans. DK8.
Twenty-first century man has several telescopes orbiting Earth that
return images of the distant stars. Teams of our best minds analyse this new
knowledge trying to understand our world. Yet, it seems that even with these
telescopes we can only perceive about four percent of what we think constitutes
the universe. Man is a poor, weak little creature who, like an earthworm, lacks
the senses required to see ninety-six percent of what surrounds him! Are we
perhaps like children that have been given a few toys by their watchful parents
who now forgivingly judge how we use them? Would it help us to believe that the
lessons good men learn when they 'lose' to bad men might be of use to them in a
better place?
In Switzerland a collider is searching for Higgs' bosun, a
theoretical particle some think will make sense of our world, or rather justify
our latest scientific consensus opinion of the world. Man has believed in many
past false hopes. Where will we be if they don't find it? Re-reading the
Pre-Socratics.
Contemplate the fish in a small tank enjoying the constant
environment we provide them, steady temperatures, day and night, food at regular
times, everything provided for their happiness. To them the universe ends at the
glass where their vision blurs. Could they see us, we would appear gods.
G. Lauren (email
him) is a writer living in
the UK.
* All page numbers refer to the appropriate Loeb Classical Library volume.
Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Lauren-Religion.html
