Traditional wisdom recommends that one should not discuss, compare, prognosticate and much less criticize - this would be the horror of horrors! - such topics as religion, politics and even football. Principally religion, a veritable minefield in which it is possible to lose more than one’s legs... -, suitable for the formation of legions showing outrage against any kind of minimal critical remark - “Be careful what you say, brother!”
Despite the risk, how is it possible to deny the immense influence of religious beliefs on the life of entire peoples? How many millions have already died and are yet to perish - perhaps incinerated by nuclear weapons -, not by natural causes, but as a closely associated or remote consequence of philosophies or proselytisms arising from texts perceived as scared? In the as yet insoluble Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, there is more than a little latent religious content in this impasse. One of the parties involved, or both - objections shift around like the sands of the desert, blown by politicians - believe that the sanctity of Jerusalem cannot be divided and humanity has not yet advanced sufficiently to impose an “external” ruling, made by an international court of justice, as would be both logical and natural when two parties are unable to reach an agreement.
For thousands of years, mental clouds charged with electricity have hung over the heads of humans magnetized by supposedly logical and moral religious convictions, suggesting that the “enemies of our faith, for reasons of being absurdly ‘wrong’, should be excluded from the roll of the living”. Such elimination would only involve “moral prophylaxis”. For those obsessed in this way, it would be a sin, a crime and cowardice to come to terms with the “error” and its consequent “evil”.
From the outset, I am removing football from the scope of this text concerning dominating passions, this being a sport that, to my perplexity, is capable of leading individuals - well-balanced in all other respects - to tears, heart attacks, the ecstasy of victory, incendiary vandalism, skull fractures and even homicide. All this, amazingly, when the team of the exuberant supporter loses, wins or even draws; in joy or sadness, it does not matter which. The gluttonous “devil”, in the guise of a ball, does not choose situations. He only wants to crazily cackle with laughter, with a delirious gaze, using human blows and kicks, preferably in the midst of cars in flames, his natural habitat. This is further proof that so-called civilized man has not managed to free himself from his more ancestral instincts, including the desire to be admired for acts of violence.
With regard to religions, always impregnated with strong emotions - although of a different nature, being theoretically focused on good rather than evil - there are those that are more and less serene. More and less concerned with the financial returns of preaching. A concern that is based - sometimes to an exaggerated extent - on the practical need for cash in order to spread beliefs that will resolve all the health, financial and even love problems of their followers.
Leaving aside sporadic individual cases of abuse by those spreading the faith - most adherents are sincere and well-intentioned -, it is an undeniable fact that, for thousands of years, man has felt the need for an infinitely intelligent, ubiquitous, powerful, generous, understanding, just and instantly accessible protector - via prayer -, without the well-known bureaucratic middlemen that torment those that ask somebody, a government or company for something. Whoever has faith converses directly with their god, without risk of phone tapping and demands as to whether they have done their homework.
From this viewpoint, of spiritual support, faith is irreplaceable, regardless of its authentic correspondence with scientific reality. Self-help that comforts us and provides something of extremely great value: hope. How is it possible, one may ask, to pitilessly wrench the only piece of wood from the grasp of the desperate shipwreck victim that prevents him from drowning in his own anguish? How is it possible to tell the father of the child with cancer, the mature unemployed professional, or the elderly person with the initial symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, that it is better to put aside all illusions and face harsh reality: the death of the child, permanent unemployment and the insanity of the old person? Furthermore, don’t forget that all religions worthy of the name are stamped with a moral code that has been or still is useful to humanity.
As the great Brazilian jurist Rui Barbosa once said, the criminal code deals with public crimes, whereas religion takes care of private crimes. I presume that, on average, the Italian Mafioso - with some remnant of the Christianity infused into his soul when a child - is less perverse than the Russian gangster, or Japanese Yakuza member, raised from the cradle with strictly materialistic views. The mortally wounded Mafioso, lying in a pool of blood and feeling his life ebbing away, likely fears some kind of final judgment. Perhaps he even prays. Professional Russian and Japanese convicts, convinced that they are nothing more than organized flesh and blood, are only sorry that they will not continue to live.
Sincerely religious people, as long as they are peaceful and tolerant - if they were not so, they would be more likely to be soldiers, guerrillas or terrorists - should not, ever, be intellectually attacked or despised for being as such, even when there is an ingenuous basis for their faith. The reason for this is that an authentic believer, even if illiterate, reveals - simply by believing in God - , something morally precious: the spirit of justice. — “How is it possible”, the authentic believer asks himself, “for there to not be a God, when it can be seen that some evil and deceitful people go through life solely taking advantage and abusing, whereas millions of others only suffer, carrying the crosses of poverty, ignorance, disease, misfortune and injustices of all kinds? It would be unjust, ‘illogical’, for there not to be a final judgment, with punishment or reward, according to the past of each individual”. He is revolted by the mere possibility that both the good and the bad have the same appalling end: nothingness!
Confronted by arguments of this type, agnostics reply that logic, science and harsh reality have nothing to do with aspirations of justice. Technically, I agree. Facts are facts; however, compassion - elephants have been filmed making hopeless and desperate efforts to free a female with a leg accidentally caught in a suspended tire - is an immensely useful quality for the preservation and spiritual comfort of the human race. As somebody once said, a starving person does not need to know about the scientific phenomenon of digestion in order to satisfy his hunger. The ordinary person is much more interested in happiness - his own and that of his family -, than an in-depth knowledge of science, accessible to a microscopic minority. According to yesterday’s newspaper (“Estadão, page A17), the BBC in London stated that, in 2009, 32,000 people committed suicide in Japan. And the level of culture of the Japanese is one of the highest. If there is no error in the aforementioned number, we tacitly accept that it represents too many people tortured by a lack of perspective. A higher level of general and scientific culture did not save them from voluntary death.
Currently, certain North-American authors make a great deal of effort to demonstrate that God does not exist. From a logical point of view, their argument is irresistible. In fact, as they say, religions are not exactly “chosen” by their followers. They are received from parents. It is not mere coincidence that, in Christian countries, children become Christian adults, the same occurring in the case of Jews and Muslims. Another significant argument put forward by atheists is that of criticizing those who say that they have been “saved by a miracle” in a disaster that killed dozens or even hundreds of people. Such critics consider that an impartial God would not have any reason for such favoritism and could even prevent the disaster. Furthermore, the same authors argue that if there were an impartial God - and an unjust God would really negate the idea of a deity - there would not be so many harmful diseases and organisms. They ask: what is the benefit to man - God’s masterpiece - of verminoses, leprosy, tuberculosis, parasites, mental debility, physical deformities, insanity and deficiencies in general?
I am saying all this solely as a criticism of the somewhat aggressive “tone” of atheist preaching. In the same “manner” as indoctrination. There is no need for haste in convincing millions of people that they simply praying to themselves. I would not feel morally good if I were capable of convincing - principally an elderly person - that he cannot expect anything after death. Let him change his opinion, when and if he so desires. The reason for this is that proud Science cannot boast that it only brings certainties. Commonplace phenomena still have no explanation: for example, why do bodies attract one another instead of repelling? That which is still unknown to us is a thousand times greater than that which is already known. Only the future will tell. Ten years ago, did anyone talk about “dark matter” in the universe?
With a certain frequency, scientific opinions established as incontestable or auspicious are replaced by others of opposite meaning. The “Big Bang” hypothesis still does not appear to me to be convincing. Who knows, cosmologists will soon be telling us that perhaps there was no kind of “initial explosion” at all; that the universe only “heaving”, like a tired lung, with heavenly bodies getting closer and further away from one another. Despite this, attempts to search for truth should be encouraged, without any political or religious interference, given that the more man gets to know the environment in which he lives - including himself -, the principal actor in the tragicomedy -, the better he will overcome the obstacles that limit and torment him. If, at certain times, Science comes up against Faith on the same narrow sidewalk, it is Faith that should cede the right of way, not the opposite. Although painful in doctrinal terms, such a gesture on the part of Faith will certainly benefit the human condition. It will allow for improvement of religion itself, in that part where it is best: its acceptance of truth. All living beings - and religions are also “living” in a certain sense - need to evolve in order to not perish. I am sorry to say, rightly or wrongly, that the decline of certain religions in attracting new followers is due to the erroneous “wisdom” of doctrinal rigidity. If the entire universe is in a constant process of change, why would religions be the only exception?
Almost coming to an end, I risk saying, as an ordinary “amateur philosopher”, that over the next few decades science will thoroughly investigate the innate spontaneous “intelligence” built into all living things; irrespective of whether or not they have a brain. Such “diffuse” intelligence - probably not bestowed by any kind of supernatural power, as it is completely amoral, explains the anatomical and functional perfection of all life, including the AIDS virus, pathogenic bacteria, venomous scorpions, spiders and snakes, blood-sucking bats, mammals in general and even poisonous plants. With no brain, plants know what they are doing when they bend towards a ray of sunlight that is passing nearby. Biologists say that plants weep when they are cut down. In my opinion, apparently, such intelligence does not originate from a god; it is simply the consequence of the growing complexity of all living things, a promising field of research for biologists. However, if somebody says that this diffuse intelligence is God himself, I have nothing against such an assertion. It is a question of nomenclature.
It is my understanding that religions - much like science, politics and the rest -, if manipulated by fanatical minds, can suffer enormous blunders and downfalls, as in the case of the American pastor who intended to burn 200 copies of the Qur’an on September 11th. Fortunately, he quickly gave up the idea, under pressure brought to bear by the American government. He blundered, but avoided a downfall. The incident reminds me of an amusing fictional story, which I am reproducing here in order to calm any agitation of the spirit of those readers extremely sensitive to debates on religion.
During his discourse, a preacher, fervent but with little sense - something rare in the real world -said that everything that exists on the face of the earth is perfect, because the Creator would not accept any kind of imperfection in His work. At this moment, a voice at the back of the room protested in an indignant tone. It was a man with a spinal deformity who, argumentative, stood up, turned to display his profile and asked the preacher: — “Are you sure? What do you think of my hunchback?”
The speaker replied, without hesitation: - “What are you complaining about? Congratulations! I have never seen such a perfect hunchback as yours!”
Being serious once again, this article can be summarized in the following words: each one of us should do that which brings about greater inner satisfaction. Believing or not believing. Tolerate contrary beliefs. Who knows, you might think in the same way if you were in the place of the other person, with a past and a genetic makeup different from your own. In addition, if you were a highly cultured atheist, you would not be annoyed by the supposed “illusions” of believers. Illusions are also useful, if they are not aggressive. All the arts are nothing more than illusions and nobody has ever thought of eliminating them because they are essentially “fantasies”. These also have their rights, if they benefit mankind in some way. Only defend the right of Science to continue in its search for the elusive truth, although sometimes Science also blunders.
(10-9-2010)
