T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000— — — — — CONTENTSForeword About the Creation and the created About the woman and the man About the mankind About the intellect About the religion About the democracy About the violence About the justice About the population About the future Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland — — — — — PART THREEABOUT THE INTELLECTI. Definition Exact definition of the intellect is principally impossible, because this is all-comprising basic notion, about which is supposed that each one has some intuitive idea (in the same way as it is not defined what is this God, or matter, for example), so that we will rather remind in the beginning what is this idea. But let us turn your attention to the fact that the word "intellect" is used in different contexts, which are often contradictory, and in other cases are highly restrictive, because we are inclined to ascribe intellect only to the humans (and from here also to the God, in all religions), where different animals, as well as artificial systems, can also show intellectual behaviour in many situations. So that the best, what we can expect, is some heuristic definition, which must comprise the most significant, but without asserting that it is complete and uncontroversial, where more important for us will be not to miss some intellectual exhibition, than to exclude this, for which special intellect is not needed. In the second half of 20th century this question become particularly important because of the trials, some of them strikingly successful, for artificial modeling of human intellect. To many readers maybe is known the Turing criterion about this, when we have one intellectual system (computer, robot, or human), which is reduced to this, that a person converses through some informational channel (computer terminal) with somebody, without seeing or hearing him directly, so that he has no knowledge about him, and if after some reasonable amount of time he can not say for sure (or makes an error) whether he speaks with human or automaton, then he has before himself an artificial intelligence. Here the accent is, on one hand, on the subjectivity of assessment, and on the other hand, on the independence from the elementary basis (live cells or electronic elements). This is a right approach, but it says us nothing about the essence of intellect (more than this, that there is no other way for its defining). The intuitive idea, usually, is about such activity, which looks quite complicated, so that even not every human being can do it. Something similar states the etymology of the word, because "intellect" must come from Greek entelecheia (εντελεχεια), which was a term coined and used in ancient times by Aristotle as one of the names of energy and meaning: activity, operating and efficient energy, efficiency of given activity, or just something that may happen, opportunity for something. In other words, the intellect is something hidden (in the canvas of the things), something which can′t be seen, unless it shows itself in some way, some working principle of the matter (i.e. it is not connected with the human), what makes it to function correctly. But even in the time of Aristotle this word has not fallen from above, and, although made around the word "energy" (ενεργεια) as something active, and as something different from the dynamics, it is still quite away from the energy and in Ancient-Greek can be found εντελεω as whole, complete, intact, εντελεια as wholeness, or εντελετεω as inspire, excite! Well, not that people like much to be inspired by the intellect (they prefer rather actions and thrillers) but this is the meaning put in the word for centuries; and if we take into account that the very body (more precisely the root tele–, which in Slavonic languages means body) is also hidden in it, i.e. when we take apart the prefix εν = in (which is very old), we come to the idea about inserting of something and uniting of the parts in one whole system, or about the relations between the things. In this situation it is reasonable to connect the adjective "intelligent" with the activity of a driver or football player, for example, even if this isn′t some tiring mental activity. And the point isn′t in the complexity of procedures or reasonings but in their originality or novelty, in the exact evaluation of the situation and performing of the most adequate action, so that it is entirely possible for the play of some elite footballer to be more intelligent than the solving of a given integral equation, for example. Similar is the question also with all great masters in the area of arts, the majority of which surely meet with problems by solving of tasks from the upper (and even middle) school classes, but whose activity is intelligent, it you want only for the reason that such tasks solve practically all school students of some average grade, while the creative activity of those masters can in the best case be imitated! From what follows that the intellect is mainly in the creating of something new in a given situation, not in applying of known, even if difficult, rules. This new thing was only as possibility, until they have turned it to reality. But if you ask those people what is this new thing, which is the secret of their success, they will not explain this to you, not only because that is how they win their "bread", but because even they alone, in most of the cases, don′t know what it is. When for performing of a given activity exists some description, procedure, recipe, or algorithm for acting, then it is not counted for very intellectual, but if good rules don′t exist it deserves praises and admiration, and this is the reason which has forced the Ancient Greeks to contrive the metaphor about the Muses, who whisper in the ear of the artist what and how to do. It is interesting in this relation the answer of the sculptor Auguste Rodin how he was doing his statues — he said: "I take a piece of stone and cut out all redundant."! So that the intellect was and remains first of all one mystery, though in many cases can be proposed different rules and methods of learning. Today everything is learned, but this does not mean that the great masters have become such because they have learned the secrets of the craft during their time of education — it was necessary for them mainly to expand their horizons and to add new methods and means to their palette, but not to change this, what was already in their heads. And because we have mentioned once the algorithms of creativity let us draw your attention to one misleading paradox, which consists in this, that the activities, taken usually for most intelligent, turn out to be quite easy for artificial modeling, while those, which are more elementary and accessible even to many animals, turn to be the most difficult! The chess game, which is played by the humans for millenniums, is a typical example of complicated intellectual activity, but in spite of this the contemporary computers, though being still in their "infant" age (about half a century), have succeeded to beat, not just anybody, and not some average chess player, but the world champion in chess, debunking the myth about the unsurpassable human intellect. And on the other hand, various elementary human activities done with naked hand and practically without mental efforts, as also the very graceful gate of some animals, are still quite difficult to be performed by a number of robots and in all probability the creation of sufficient similarity with the humans is not a question of near future. This is so because there, where the procedure can be easily algorithmized, the contemporary technology is sufficiently powerful to do wonders, while the simple mechanical movements and seemingly elementary conclusions at common sense level are much more difficult for realizing. Similarly to the chess may be mentioned also the computer animation and music, which are developing for some twenty years, but already have many impressive results (we are not speaking about what one can do with the use of computers, but about autonomous activity of computer programs). Based on the above said we can give some working definition of the notion intellect, as: heuristic processing of information, which allows invention of new relationships and conducting of adaptive behaviour in unforeseen situations. The heuristic means incompleteness or inaccuracy of the decision, as also missing of the right decision, and the adaptability presupposes some adjustment to the environment and learning. The intellect is just unclear way for processing of information, and is this done consciously or not (and what is this "computer consciousness"?), as also is it volitional or arbitrary act, is not so important. The presumption about some decomposition of the goals exists, but it is implied also by the novelty of situation and by the groping way of working of the intellectual system. There is no need of considering the material medium in which this processing of information is done, because important is the idea and not its physical realization. (A propos, even the very word "idea", i.e. the Latin idea, is based on the root ... Deo, what is old Greek Θεοσ, or God, what means that in the idea necessarily exist something divine.) This is enough as introduction, and in the next chapter we will deepen slightly our views to the intellectual processing of information and will divide it in two major classes. II. Reason And Intellect The reason and the intellect are often observed as synonyms, but is good to make also difference between them, because while the intellect is something in possibility, then the reason is the ability for applying of already known algorithms. The very word "reason" comes from Latin ratio, what means relation or dividing, and the meaning of its applying for intellectual activity comes from the difficult procedure of dividing (it is meant with Roman numerals), which in the antiquity was known to less than one out of thousand people, maybe (and today is even less known, because the Roman digits are not more used in arithmetics). Phonetically here is hidden the dividing or making of ... strokes, incisions (as also in Slavonic razum or French raison = reason; also, say, in old Bulgarian rabosh as abacus, and others), what deserves to be mentioned (because the reason usually clicks), although this is pretty rough handling of the matters. Another synonym of the reason is the logic, which is Latin-Greek logos, what means some record, or at least in this sense is used today in the English (you know: logo is an emblem, symbol, then logistic is management of resources, i.e. keeping of records for what is present and what not), and then the logic is the ability to process some written records, symbols, words, et cetera (remember the biblical "In the beginning was the word ..."), in order of revealing of their gist. In this sense is better under reason to understand the ability for complicated intellectual activity, for which, though, exist some known rules or algorithms, where the intellect is not limited only with this but presupposes also ability for getting of new solutions on the basis of comparing of situations and generating of ideas. More precisely in the artificial intelligence is spoken about analytical and synthetic methods of solutions. The analytical methods are also called discrete or digital (symbolic) and are based on some decomposition of the information and analysis of the data and the relations between them, what must enable the applying of one or another partial approach for solving; these are properly reasonable or logical methods. The synthetic methods, for their part, mean some recognizing of the situation as a whole, without detailed analysis (were is of writing of letters and other images, or of playing, war and operative settings, or of musical works, etc.), and are called also analogous; they don′t give so exact solutions, but can be very fast and can be easily acquired by the people. These notions very often are interwoven and is possible that analogous procedures are realized on digital machines, or logical algorithms are performed in analogous way, and this happens as in the computer systems, so well also by the people, because there are different types of psyches with their preferred activities. The important thing is to grasp that these are two types of information processing and not one, though in the contemporary computers for the time being exists the tendency to use the digital processing everywhere, but this is question of effectiveness of the element base and can be temporary phenomenon. The word "analogous" also originates from Ancient Greece and has to say something different from the "logo", because the "a" in the beginning of the word (from ancient times, but at least from the Ancient-Greek, most often) is prefix for negation; the learning by analogies (situations or casuses-cases), though, is basic method in various sciences. It is so in the example with the driver and football player, in the military affaires, in the jurisprudence, medicine, literature and other arts, and where else not, what means that we have no rights to disregard this method of solving of intellectual tasks. Otherwise it will turn out that the whole intellectual activity is reduced to solving of tasks from higher mathematics, or to playing of chess, where the computers are already better than the humans, and even will be forced to exclude from the sphere of reasonable people all so called intellectuals or people of the arts, as also those working in other humanitarian areas, only because they can′t (and they really very often can′t) judge reasonable. So that we must observe both kinds of information processing in their integrity, when we speak about intellect — were it human, were it machine, were animal, or then extraterrestrial. And really, some people are good in memorizing of the facts, and another ones of the rules, and this is well known, though such division is nor very indicative, because these both things are analytical or discrete informational entities. But there are people with differently developed imagination and differently emotionally charged, as also such who prefer actions by analogies. Till recently at this was looked as at different ways of functioning of the brain, but in the 70s years of 20th century was discovered that they are related with different parts of the brain, but not of consciousness or subconsciousness (what is one functional, not material division), or of cortex and subcortex, bur of something much more differentiated — of left and right hemispheres of the brain! The left hemisphere (except that it controls motor activity of the right half of the body — the nerve fibers "seek" every opportunity to extend themselves and cross one with the other, because precisely there are built the nodes or synapses, which are the exact memory units) is responsible about the rationally-logical or semiotic (symbolic) information processing, which is most often verbal or symbolic. In the left hemisphere is placed the center of speech, and it, although polyvalent, diffused, and imprecise in comparison with mathematical rules and formulas, is one discrete transformation of information. There is the semiotic machine of the human and there is performed the decomposition of the goals, the planning, the logical reasoning, at cetera. As far as the people are predominantly right-handed, then also in relation with the coordination of our movements the left part of the brain is, as a rule, mode developed and important. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is the analog machine, which realizes chiefly the processing of emotional images and by the greater part of people works mainly during the sleep. There is performed the associative recognition, the judging by analogies, the spontaneous situational classification, at cetera, which are full with errors, if one has succeeded to "catch" his brain in many incongruities during sleep, but they are much faster and interesting. The intellectuals, probably, have the ability to use their right hemisphere also while awake, what amplifies their imagination, while the logical verification of the left hemisphere is weaker and undeveloped. By each of us the brain has its specificity, but the important thing is that we have in our heads, in fact, two types of computers, which work together, where this duality is the basis of our thinking and of the human intellect! Out brain is not simply one multiprocessor system of identical processors (though by some individuals this is also realized, meaning that there are people who can perform simultaneously several mental activities), but a complex of different in their way of functioning machines. The experiments in artificial intelligence are reduced, for the time being, mainly to modeling of the activities of the left hemisphere, though it is not that the ideas of the perceptron and the neural networks, which must help in realizing of our "right" computer, have not existed, but we have to wait for this, maybe, half or one century more. In any case, this obscure thing in possibility can be achieved also in artificial way, more so that the nature (or God) has succeeded to do this in the most elementary way — via millions and millions of trials and errors. III. Undeveloped Instinct This, that we have in our disposition such perfect computer devices in our heads, however, does not mean that we use them properly. More precisely said: the human being acts reasonably only after he has used up all unreasonable methods for achieving of the goal! The intellect is as if the last resort for us, and we remember about it when all other means have already failed. In this sense is justified to look at it as at one undeveloped instinct, of which we rarely make use even in our individual activity, not to mention our collective decisions in society, where the noising of the environment is so strong that suppresses the reasonable voices (see "About the mankind"). As far as this, to have in disposition something good and not to use it properly, must look as pretty strange phenomenon, let us look more precisely at the causes for our unintelligent behaviour. 1. The intellectual decisions require much time and the process of thinking is significantly slower than the instinctive reactions, because of what the people very often behave like the animals. Here it goes primarily about the analytical or rational decisions, bur they continue to be regarded as properly intellectual and exactly there the human beings think that they have superiority over the animals, only that the latter very often behave more reasonable than them and even more "humane". In fact, it can be said that the human is just one universal animal, which on account of his universality is also more incapable than any other specialized animal in whatever concrete activity, and because of this tries to compensate his imperfection through this new instinct (or, rather, that the human being has become universal, in the process of evolution, because he has been sufficiently incompetent and helpless in various activities). So that, in the best case, the human tries to automatize his knowledge and technique of work to the speed (and level) of the instinct, where, if he succeeds in this, he acquires then, with the time, some intuition, what shall say unconscious intellectual activity, performed spontaneously and without apparent mental activity. It happens so by solving of school tasks, by driving, and in fulfilling of his direct obligations, but this is, rather, applying of previous mental activity, reduced in the moment of action to automatism (as, for example, if one thinks while walking which leg to heave and how to shift the center of gravity, then he will often stumble and fall). But such, now reflective, activities can be performed in known situations, while in complex life problems one is forced to think on the spot, only that this is very tiring and slow for him, and the operational situation not always allows it. 2. The human, however, except head, has also body, what means that he is first of all emotional and then rational. The human is higher animal (what should not shock us because it is true), and the main goal of every animal is to have a pleasant life, so that here we have one dialectical contradiction in the goals of existence. The robots are not emotional (at least till now) because we have not decided, that this will be of some use for them, but the modeling of emotions is nor more difficult than the modeling of intellect, and if by us the emotions are hindrance it is natural not to apply them in the artificial intellect. But the emotional load of human judgements does not mean simply taking of partial decisions satisfying only our interests, because the intellect is obliged to force the superiority of the given individual or group above the others and this is natural. More than this, it can be stated that in our world one suffers mostly not because he does not keep his interest, but because he can′t establish correctly his interest (for he keeps it too much)! The partiality of human thinking is expressed in violation of the very logic of reasoning and substituting it with this, to what the individual is emotionally more well-disposed, or, in the slightest cases, in filtering of the input data from the point of view of (often non realized) individual preferences. The human being is up to such extent egocentric, that he can think logically very rare, by the simple reason, that a priory takes for true this, what wants to prove in the way of logic. So does the politician, and the jurist, and the patient, and the enamored one, etc., and as if really reasonable behaviour can be observed only by working with abstract mathematical categories. About the contradiction between reason and emotions, surely, is spoken much, but the core of the matter is that it is not at all necessary for this contradiction to be antagonistic and the whole "trick" is in this who will command who. It is normal to expect that the intellect will rule over the emotions and from this will gain the very emotions (together with the intellect), but as far as the human being is not created at once, but is product of the evolution of animals, the emotions take more basic position than the intellect. This, in fact, is paraphrasing of the thesis about the undeveloped instinct, because when it will develop enough (and if it will do so, of course) it must take the whole commandment using the emotions only as "consultants" or "arbiters" by evaluation of the decisions. In the next few centuries (and more realistic — millenniums), however, we have no reasons for big expectations because nowadays for at least 95% of the people the arguments of the intellect continue to sound dry and unconvincing and they prefer the action before the thinking, because the former brings more immediate emotions, what means that they have, still, not learned to feel emotional satisfaction from the very process of thinking. 3. The heuristic character of intellectual decisions means that their truthfulness is not always guaranteed, and their checking in many cases is not possible, were it because of the enormous dimension, were it because of the main criterion for truthfulness (at least in the social area) — the verification of the future. Looking more generally, the most efficient strategy, used everywhere by the nature (or God, if you definitely want to personify it), is the teeming with so many errors trial and error method (or complete search in the state space), which, though, can be successfully applied if one has at his disposal unlimited time and resources. The human isn′t God, but he also can apply some limited form of this strategy, if he realizes his position of dust particle of the human society and history and uses the accumulated millions of errors during the passed centuries. Only that each individual prefers to make his own errors (because this is much easier than the processing of whole accessible information) and is very proud with this "independence". Well, in various cases this turns out to be correct, because the conditions of the previous errors surely were a bit different in something. In any case, our decisions are heuristic and our criteria for truthfulness are relative, so that the exact decision is not always guarantied. But if the exact heuristic decision is not always guarantied, then at the expense of this is possible to be found some acceptable solution in relatively short time. In similar way work also the computer programs for playing of chess (and, naturally, the chess masters, too), which never consider all possible moves, but limit themselves with certain depth on the tree of conditions, as it is said. According to approximate calculations the number of possible moves in a game of chess of average length is a number written with one followed by 120 zeroes (i.e. 10 raised to 120th power, 10120), what is one really enormous number, because the amount of all atoms in the Universe, was written as one followed by only 80-some zeroes. So that the heuristic is unavoidable in complex tasks and everything is question of acceptable balance between wholeness of the examination and time for getting of the solution. But what is the intellect, if not also a balance between contradictory requirements? Exactly this balance, though, this finding of the middle, as have said already the Ancient Greeks, is the most difficult thing for the human. 4. Another reason for the irrational human behaviour is the verbality of our judgements, or the restrictive influence of the language. We are especially proud with our articulate speech, capable to give good description of the nature, but this, what it most of all gives, is one virtual (i.e. seeming) reality, which is rather misleading and ambiguous, than exact. Nobody can convince, say, a dog, that it is better for him to eat beans, soy, nuts, etc., because it does not understand human speech and thus prefers always the meat, while the humans can be convinced in this (and according to the Hinduism the use of whatever meat is not just, including also eggs and caviar, for these were the future offspring of the animals). Our social system is based on the human speech, because no politician can manage the masses if he can′t speak well, i.e. manipulate the people. We just like the delusion, which the words give us, and don′t want to change it with anything else; the seeming reality of the literature is more attractive than some other arts, because their language (of the painting, for example) is poorer. By the way, it is not known which Bulgarian has first decided that our speech must be called "rech" (and was he a Bulgarian), but he must have had sense of humour, because you know what "retch" in English means! This, of course, is just one linguistic curiosity and is not directly related with out discussion, but is indicative for the uselessness of many superlatives related with the (considered as logical) speech center of the brain, which, in fact, does what can, under the limitations imposed by the language. The natural languages are especially inaccurate and work with very fuzzy concepts, what is the main reason due to which different people can on the basis of one and the same data come to radically different conclusions! Our trouble is not that we can speak, but that we believe to what was said! If we could have used some semantic language, which reflects better the meaning of the concepts, as now the artificial intellect tries to do, or if we have at least mastered the telepathy en mass, not just as some phenomenal exception of ones out of millions (and this not always and not for any mental images), we surely would have been more reasonable and more truthful. Many animals have their, primitive according to our understanding, languages, but they are good enough to express the necessary for them emotions (because their intellect is very rudimentary and on a more subordinate level than the emotions, in comparison with ours). There are reasons to hope that, under the influence of the logic, the natural languages will become more and more precise, though this is very slow process. We, I mean the Bulgarians, for example, still use the double negation (e.g. the phrase "I don′t know nothing new", which all the Slavs use — but it is so in the Roman languages, too — correctly understood means that "I know something new") while the Englishmen (as also the Germans) have rejected this before more than a century. But this does not mean, that they (i.e. you, the English speaking people) are significantly before us, because they have still not learned to make difference between the letter "o" and the number "0", and in many cases call the numbers "figures". Till now as if the only progress is the entering, already also in Bulgarian, of the combination "and /or", because our everyday "or" is the so called "excluding or", i.e. logical function which is true only if the both things are different (i.e. either the one or the other), while the writing with slash is true always when the both things are not simultaneously false. In any case, it is important to understand that our language, how much helps us, so much also hinders us, in our efforts to find the essence of the things, and our intellect consists not necessarily in the ability to speak. So that it would have been best of all if we could have been intelligent without speaking, instead of the reverse (what happens most often). 5. In relation with the rareness of intellectual activity by the humans not to ignore is also the fact that the intellect is not directly related with the continuation of the gender, what is our global goal in life, from the point of view of the nature, because for continuation of the gender we need everything else but not much brains! The intellect continues to play secondary role in all more significant social activities (see "About the mankind"), which are related, anyhow, with the achieving of better conditions for reproduction of a given social group (although this is not realized by its members). From the view point of reproduction the human being is not intellectual but reproducing machine, where the man is the sower, and the woman is the earth-womb. Some of us may like this (especially the very process of reproduction, abstracted from the result), and some — not much (if their reproductive apparatus is a bit worn-out, or not yet completed), but surely not more often than once in thousand times one indulges in this activity for reasonable causes. In any case, even in our enlightened age, and in the wealthy and developed countries, the intellect is valued mainly as subsidiary element from the other sex, because the women search the beautiful, and/or the wealthy, and/or the strong men, while the men search ... again the same, but with the exception of the strength (because the strength of the woman, as it is known, is in her weakness). The intellect usually is not a hindrance, when it is possession of the man, but it is just one piquant nuance (something like the combination between white and black race, for example, which has nice exciting effect), while by the women it is valued not according to the merits, but because of its rareness (something like, say, egg of a pterodactyl). And in the society is looked at the intelligent people in the best case with regret, because, you see, they have nothing else left to them, with which to become famous. Maybe on some other planet the things are different, by the artificial intelligence this surely will not be so, but by the people this is innate quality. 6. At the end we will focus also on the lack of organization in the human society as a whole, what makes the special intellect of its members just unnecessary. And, really, what is the need of quite optimal solution for a given individual or a small group, when their interaction is still performed in the most primitive way (see "About the mankind" and "About the violence"), and the reasonable decision has no chances to be put into practice? The central nervous system of the animals is improved in their struggle for survival, but when the human being is survived, and even is overpopulated our "poor" planet to insanity, then why should he need further improvements? The limits of our biggest dreams for public harmony don′t go beyond the democracy, market economy, and "reasonable" armament, where the democracy contradicts to the common sense (see "About the democracy"), the market is one obvious deceit (see "About the mankind"), and the armament is reasonable only from the positions of the stronger. Until the society does not succeed to build some better organization than this of the jellyfish, for example, where the decisions of the central thinking organ to be put into practice without opposition of the masses, and better specialization than that of the destructive tests, or of prosperity of the fittest (as if we are on some competition and the sun does not shine equally for all), then there will be no special need of more perfect form of human intellect. In other words, until the contradictions between the individuals will not be reduced to the possible minimum the people will continue to behave unreasonable or like animals. Well, that is it in general outlines: the goal justifies the means! As far as the creativity is to a great extent related with the intellect it is proper to say a few sentences also about it. Each intellectual activity is, as a rule, creative, though the reversed thing very often is not true. Maybe it is good to define the creative activity as such, by which the pleasure is in the process, not much in the result, albeit, if the result is good, this also is not to be neglected. The antipodal activity is the routine one, by which the pleasure is after its conclusion, in the results of it (say, in the payment), while the very process quite often is not attractive for the individual. Naturally, are possible different levels of compromise between those two extremities, as also varying of the character of activity with the time; besides, such dividing is specific for each person. In this sense it is possible that a given creative activity is not related with the necessity of much intellect and one example for this is ... the sex, which surely is not practiced because of the result (exactly it most often is undesired) but because of the process! But this is really creative activity (at any rate until one does not get bored by the partner), because one discovers each time something new in it, and for the majority of people this is the only creative activity. In his life, of course, everybody tries to leave at least one child after himself, but this seeking of the result comes after the pleasure from the process and is rather for personal justification; the human is wanting animal and he always aims at something — if not at anything else than at least at permanent life via his children. So that the intellect, for most of the people, is still something new, in which necessity they are not convinced. And they are not convinced because it does not bring them special pleasure, like the sex, for example. Those, who get pleasure out of the very intellectual process are happy in their own way, because this helps them in many life situations, and also one more pleasure is not to be missed. Only when this becomes common practice (and if this happens), then we could be able to assert that the human is thinking animal, not only capable to think (because he is capable also to ... urinate, for example, but does not relate his name with that his "ability"). If, after all, this will not happen — well, then the experiment has proved to be unsuccessful. — — — — — ABOUT THE RELIGIONI. Support For The Masses Well-known is the sentence that the religion is opium for the people, only that the wide majority of public has prejudiced conception on the question, due to (justified with nothing) assuming that the opium is something bad, because from this must follow that the religion also can′t be something good, but the masses, as a rule, see nothing bad in the religion (or at least in their religion). Such judgement is logical but wrong, because the opium is not necessary to be something bad (for otherwise it would not have been applied in the contemporary, as also ancient, medicine), and in addition to this everything depends on the dose and the particular case (or ailment). The people seek the religion exactly in their difficult moments in life — by big misfortunes and death — and precisely then they need this psychical and moral opium, in order to carry easier the heavy burden of their individual life. Surely, the religion is welcome also in the happy moments in their life, like marriage ceremonies, births, beautiful religious festivals and carnivals, because the great joy and the great sorrow have similar confusing impact on their everyday life; but even if it is not always so (because there is nothing confusing in an Easter, or a Corban-Bairam, or some other church holiday), nobody is crazy to deprive himself of nice traditions, and even looks for them alone, because in the many centuries of their existence the various religions have had possibility to devise much successful scenarios for nationwide holidays. So that, if we get rid of the prejudice about the opium, we could even complete the above thought pleading that: the religion is exactly this opium, which the people need! If it wasn′t so the religions simply would not have existed for millenniums, because nobody can enforce over the man (at least not for a longer period) something what he does not want. If some priests do not understand the things in this way then this is just one more proof for their narrowness of thinking (something what is pretty typical for the cult officers, where the dogmatic thinking is norm of behaviour). The religion for the masses is what the fairy tales for the children are, regardless whether they are beautiful or scaring, because the common people do not differ much from the children in their naive conceptions and in their wish to escape somehow from the reality, that they wide away from always like. In this sense the religion is a kind of escapism, and nobody can take away from the people the possibility for such temporary "switching out", and has also no such rights. The communist propaganda, because of the fact that it was a new religion (on what we will linger a bit about the end of this essay), although it did not dare to admit this, forced the perception that the religions (i.e. the other religions) are something imposed on the people, what is not needed for them, and, hence, harmful. But this is just not true in the general case, because the people alone seek some religion, and this what is imposed on them (and they don′t like it) is the commonly accepted religion and its learning in the schools (for the compulsory things rarely appeal to the people), and for that reason already in the era of Renaissance appeared many adversaries of the religion. These adversaries were big humanists and great personalities, and their opposing was normal and necessary in order to tear, or detach, the religion from the government, to eliminate the unnecessary dogmatism in the thinking (because it, as everything in excess, is harmful), to democratize and decentralize the society, but not to throw the religion entirely from the social area of life. And as we see even today it is not cast away. The religion exists, and will exist, as one vital need for the mankind, but it is changing, and will change, with the expanding of our knowledge about the world. The religious dogmas break, and for every dogmatist this means denying of the religion, but this, in fact, is one incessant evolvement from the naive and concrete ideas about God (or the gods) with human image to one more abstract understanding of the unlimited in the space and the time nature and of the nothingness and weakness of the human. The religion is one necessary delusion — obviously delusion, because there are no proofs for the existence of God (to what we shall turn our attention in chapter III, but see also "About the creation"), and obviously necessary, because the people search for it since centuries. The truth, besides that it is inaccessible for the people (and thanks God, for if we could have reached sometime the whole truth about the Universe, then what would have we done thereafter?) and our movement in the time is one ceaseless process of discovering of new partial truths from the limitless absolute truth about the world, but is also almost unbearable (because the people, as we said, are like the children). The religion is one delusion, but everything in our life is delusion: the success, the happiness, the love, the knowledge, the heroism, the purpose of life, the alcohol, the sex, the art, and so on and so on. The Christian religion says that "all is vanity", what has the same meaning (though it does not call this delusion) and offers as single alternative the faith in God and the afterlife. The only thing, that we can do in this situation, is to choose some more beautiful delusion and be happy with our mirage! It is very naive to think, that when one knows that he deludes himself in something he will be malcontent — one is discontented only when he does not like something, and the truthfulness is the last thing that interest him, and this only if he is not contented. Most of the children somewhere about the fifth year know very well that there is no Father Frost or Santa Claus, but this does not prevent them to enjoy their presents for this holiday. Each sane human being is aware that it is impossible to search all available men or women (according to the case) for to choose a partner in life, or object for his /her love, but this does not hinder him /her to fall in love, if not with the first met, then at least with one of the first 5-6 objects. Each reader knows that the fiction books (and films) are pure invention (although we, in Bulgaria, are a bit confused, for one thing because of the existing for a long time "critical realism", and for another thing — because we speak about literature, where the English speaking people name it exactly "fiction", i.e. invention), but this does not hinder him to read them, if he likes them. In this sense the realizing of the fact that that the religion is also an invention and the existence of God is unprovable, does not at all mean that the religion is not necessary for the people, nor that this hinders them to believe in it (i.e. to delude themselves). In the light of these reasonings it is now time to give a definition of the religion, but such that is maximally broad and non-limiting, in order to include all existed and existing religious beliefs, as also possible future religions. For this purpose is useful to search also some etymological relations, because this, what was settled linguistically in the languages, is something deeply felt (or "unconsciously realized") by the people during the centuries. The very word "religion" is Latin and means something on which one relies, or seeks support, what can easily be seen in the English. Then the English word "pater" is Latin, but comes from the ancient Sanskrit where patera means beam, prop, and this root is present also in Bulgarian in one rarely used nowadays word, pateritza, what is a ... crutch. The Bulgarian word for pater-priest is sveshtenik (or sveshchennik in Russian) and means bright or saint person (svesht /svecha is a candle), where the Latin Pope is in Russian papa and means also father (understand, of the humanity), and the Russian language, though for the West might sound like Chinese, has many Latin words and roots, only that the suffixes are Slavonic and different. Interesting is also the relation of the English God (and German Gott) with the root "good" (in German gut), because God is the good being; as also of your evil and devil, where the latter for the English is built from "the Evil (being)". And so on. So that our definition for the religion is the following: integral social system of perceptions and rituals, which is based exclusively on the faith, and is designed to support and encourage people in their everyday activity and especially in the difficult moments, giving meaning of otherwise meaningless, from the point of view of the individual, life. About the support, which the religion gives, we spoke enough, about the meaning of life (or its meaninglessness) there are many thoughts in the essay "About the creation", and in the next chapter we will dwell more profound on the goal of religion, so that here remains to say some words about the faith. In fact, it is obvious, that in the religion the assertions are accepted not because they are true or right, but first on faith, and only after this, when and where this is possible (and even where it isn′t) they are justified in some logical way, but post factum. More than this, not only that it is believed in something not because of its truthfulness, but precisely the opposite — because of its unprovability, or as states the reached to us from Roman times famous phrase: Credo quia absurdum, i.e. "I believe because it is absurd"! For many people this may sound as paradox, but it is the pure truth (well, not absolute one, of course), because this, what is probable or possible, it can either happen, or be proved in logical or experimental way, and this, for which there is no way to be proved (but it must be accepted on instilled in the masses), can be accepted only via the faith and without thinking. In other words, this, what is to be believed in it, i.e. is possible, provable, there is no need for it to be taken on faith (i.e. it is not "to be believed"), where this, what is not to be believed, because it contradicts to the logic and/or experiment, it must be taken on faith (i.e. it "is" to be believed) — quite confusing verbal equilibristics, but such are the human languages and the logic of common individual, so that there is no way to run away from such slippery situations. II. Morality Each religion has its deep moral purpose, and it is this, what justifies its existence. The fundamental notions about the good and the evil, introduced even by the primeval shamans, are vital necessity in the human society, not because the man is so silly not to know what is good for him and what isn′t, but because the egoistic goals of each individual contradict to the common goals of the group of people, and, hence, there must exist someone, who has to formulate some more common rules for living together, and this someone must impose them — were it with force, were it with delusion. In the nature there is no good or bad, and these notions are not necessary for the animals, because they don′t have abilities to build in themselves more or less good models or reality, and live simply day after day, without the possibility to predict the things wider ahead than, say, one yearly season. There are not virtuous cats, or wolfs, or dogs, or locusts, if you want, but this does not hinder them the least in life, because they have not the ability to formulate questions about its meaning, where the human ability for understanding (and this is where from comes the fable about the apple of knowledge in the paradise garden) is a two-edged sword. The ability for knowledge is something more perfect in biological sense, but it imposes new problems for the beings endowed with it, because if an animal kills only to defend itself or to become fed, then the man does this by various abstract reasons. In this way this social animal called thinking becomes very strong and dangerous, not only for the other animals, but also for his brethren — ergo, he must still learn how to live with the others, so that the bloodshed (or the losses of biological materials, said more cynically) to be possible minimal. Because of this, exactly, exists the morality. If we try to give one short and non limiting, but sufficiently thorough, definition of the notion "morality" we could have come to the following: system of rules destined to unite the people in the time and in the space. The common coexistence on one and the same place can be reached relatively easy (most often with the use of force), but before the time, without moral norms, the mankind just stumbles! Group of people not united in the space is accepted to be called "savages" (for they can cut the throats of each other like a pack of wolves, were it because of some female, or of some "bone", or only to show what "heroes" they are), while group of people not united in the space are usually called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don′t know how to behave in order to leave behind a good memory about themselves, nor are convinced that must leave such memory at all). For achieving of harmony in life of the human with his own kind and with the environment all means are allowed! For this reason it is entirely natural the invention of afterlife (or of reincarnation of the souls), and the complete penetration of religion (at least until it is ruling) in all spheres of life, and the notion of sinfulness of the human, and the dogmatism of religious moral, backed by the apparatus of inquisition or, at least, of some censure, as also the acrimonious intolerance to the heresies (i.e. the erroneous theories), and the utopian nature of religious happiness in contrast with the real earth pleasures, and the unavoidable stagnation in the development (because the happiness, most often, is in the stagnation), and other common characteristics of a given religion. The religions are for the masses and, for that reason, they are refuge for the weak, because the common one is weak — as much to confront the evil, as well also to comprise in his mind the unlimited time and space. For the unbiased and thinking man is completely clear that the bad and the evil are not abstract but relative categories and in each concrete case they can have different meaning, but such setting of the things does not solve the problem! One must know, for example, that the cannibalism is something very bad, cruel sin, no matter that there can be cases when it is one reasonable (say, from the view point of continuation of the gender) decision — only that they are so rare and so questionable, that it is not in the power of everyone to judge, as it′s said, on the spot, and there must be some dogma, or God′s commandments. The toleration of others′ views, indubitably, is very good and useful for each society idea, but this is requirement which is pretty difficult to reach in our full with antagonism world, so that, notwithstanding the efforts of some of the religions, there is no one, which has always been tolerant to the others (even if there was such one, it would have lost its followers, because the people are those who change the religions). What will say that the religions are positive phenomenon concerning their cause for appearance, or their intentions, but at the same time they have played extremely reactionary role during all epochs, when was come to the effect or result! This, however, is unavoidable, and the best, that one religion can do, is to detect that "the way to hell is strewn with good intentions". Nowadays almost all religions aim at ever greater tolerance, but this is mainly because of the fact that in the religious feelings of the contemporary citizens can be seen some decline and the greater tolerance creates basis for convergence of various, taken earlier for heretical, flows in a given religion, but also because in the today′s communicative world people are forced to live in greater concord and require this also from the religions. If in this way the religion retains its leading place as moralizer of the society, then this can only be welcomed! In any case, we should not think that the religion has fulfilled its purpose and therefore will perish from the face of the world, regardless of the next chapter, where we denounce some of the pseudo-scientific or Jesuitical theses for the existence of Christian God. III. Existence of God Proofs for the existence of God are not provided, and there can′t be any proofs, if we are clear about the question what is this God? If we define God as such omnipotent and indestructible Being (or "substance", if you like it better so), which exists everywhere and always, which does not depend on the real world, in which we live and whose laws we continually attain, and which is even the primary cause for the creation of this world, we can′t miss to come to the conclusion that our knowledge about this Being depends solely on His wish to allow us this pleasure. If God wants to stay away from the people and leave them, after having equipped them with free will, alone to achieve the meaning of good and bad, then He will always find ways so to hide from us, that we will not be able to find or prove His existence, neither in experimental, nor in rational way. If He, though, decides to show Himself to somebody, then this somebody will find Him everywhere: in the stone, in the tree, in the animal, in the fly, if you want, in the human being, in his thought, and will be categorically convinced in His existence, no matter what the declarations of the others are. For that reason the Christian religion insists that "who searches, finds". The whole thing here is in this, that God is not just much stronger, cleverer, and better than the humans, but is infinitely, i.e. incomparably, more such, and He exists forever and everywhere. In order to be able to attain Him or acknowledge His existence only with his own efforts one must be at least with His abilities; yeah, but the human is not a God, so that this is impossible, or, put in Latin, this is one contradictio in adjecto, i.e. contradiction in the very definition. This is not at all a new thesis, but is known for about 25 centuries and is named agnosticism. Though we, in Bulgaria, are a bit misled by this setting of the things, because the communist propaganda insisted that the agnosticism is a theory about unknowability of the real world, not of God. In some religions God is identified with the truth about everything, or with the absolute truth, as we now say, understanding by this the whole knowledge about the Universe, but this is just another way for naming of the natural laws, or the idea about the things. One way or another, if we state that God is really a God, then His existence, or absence, can′t be proved by us in whatever way, because we are imperfect and sinful beings, and when we think we have discovered God we can positively delude ourselves, as also when we think that there is no God. Said in more contemporary language God is a being from another dimension, and we simply can′t see Him, where He can (if only desires). From what follows that the existence of God is a matter of taste, or of belief, and who wants can think that He exists, but who does not want — that He doesn′t. But our wish shows no effect over His existence or absence, because we are those who need Him, not He us! The existence of God is only a hypothesis, and if we need it we can accept it, but if we can do without it there is no need to mess with it; the exact and natural sciences do very well without it, where in the social area it is often necessary, due to the naivete of the masses, and for that reason it is used there. These reflections were necessary for us in order to know how to take the listed below "evidences" for existence of the Christian God, where the quotes are necessary, if we understand that proofs, anyway, can′t exist. These are examples for Jesuitical logic, what is a mixture of logic and faith (where the logic fails), but we must not judge them especially severe, because they are intended for the masses, and the people, as a rule, apply similar imprecise judgements quite often, in order to excuse their own views is some, ostensible objective, way. Here are some of the most widespread theses for the existence of God. 1. God is the primary cause for the world, in which we live. Everything on this world is created by somebody, because there can′t arise a consequence without existing of a cause for it. One house can′t be built of itself, neither a sword be fabricated alone, nor the a human to be born without the act of conception, and so on, so that there must be cause also for this, what does not happen by our will — sprouting of the tree in the forest, emerging of the wild animals, creating of the rocks, and the seas, and the rivers, and the stars in the sky, et cetera — and, hence, they must be created by somebody. But no man can create a flower, for example, if has not its seed, or create a star in the sky, or stop the rising of the Sun, therefore all this is created by some omnipotent Being, Who lives forever in the time, knows everything, what was, and what will happen, because understands the cause-effect relations of the things, is located everywhere, where He wishes, and commands our whole world or entire Universe, because He alone has made it. He does not plant the seed for each grass, because He has said how this grass must plant its seed, or how each animal must behave and how to propagate, so that to populate this beautiful world. He has created also the human being and has made him to look like Him, but has not restricted him to do only good, because otherwise the human would not have had freedom of the will, this divine quality, but has left him to suffer on this world in order to achieve happiness in the future life, when will come to Him, then without his perishable material shell, but only as an idea, soul, or emanation of the divine principle. God is the truth for everything, because nothing can arise without the idea for it, and the idea is nonmaterial, though it can be implemented in material forms. God exists, because however much we know we, still, can′t achieve the divine nature of the world, and the world exist, hence it was created. If we think that some thinks happen simply because they happen, or casually, then we think so only because we can′t grasp the divine wisdom, but we delude us and err thinking so. And so on. All these considerations are entire speculative and can easily be rebutted also in one logical way: If God has created once the material world applying His free will, and if each thing has to have its Creator, then who has created the Creator? In general, the thesis about the beginning and meaning sets unavoidably the question about the beginning and meaning of this beginning and imposes the necessity of some hierarchy of gods, what again does not answer our questions! As, by the way, the separation of the matter from the idea about it inevitably raises the question of priority of one of the two things, but so long as they exist together (as the hen and the egg), then such separation leads to nowhere. The beginning of Creation must be observed only as some conditional point for tracking of the time, not as some real beginning, as well as also the searching of meaning or goal, where they are not bound to exist, can′t discover them but only invent them. Anyway, concerning these questions see also the assay "About the Creation". 2. The nature obeys natural laws and, hence, they must be created by somebody. This is some modification of the previous point, only that it is much more contemporary and logical and that is why we treat it separately. It does not presuppose the idea of God being like a naughty child, who has done some mischief (say, has tied a tin at the tail of a cat) and has hidden somewhere to see the fun, but of Him being like a real artist, who has created something finished (a picture, or mechanism, or the like) and has left it to the people to use it. This thesis does not limit at all the scientific search and knowledge about the world, in which for God is not necessary to interfere after the initial act of creation. It simply imposes on us the unjustified with nothing relation between the natural and human laws, and if the latter are created by somebody and written on something, then also the natural laws must be created by somebody and written somehow in the matter. But the catch is the same: when something exists, it has to be created by somebody. It is true that there can′t be a cause without some consequence, but who gives us the right on the basis of the consequence to invent also the cause for it? And who can guarantee us, that the cause is one and only, for to choose exactly it? The arbitrariness of our world can be "coded" in it (by somebody or something), but can also be the only possible solution, in which case we do not need the hypothesis of God. And in addition to this the usage of this thesis again degrades the role of God, or contradicts to His definition, because if God has created all natural laws, then He also has to obey them, what says that He has no free will or is not at all God. 3. The appropriateness of our world can be explained only with the existence of its Creator. The grass grows in order to be eaten by some animal (and to saturate the air with oxygen, if we want to be more profound in the review); the leaves of the trees fall down in the winter in order not to freeze, and to prevent the roots of the trees from freezing, and to enrich the earth with nutrients; the cow exists for to give us milk, the sow — meat, the hen — eggs, and so on; the Sun rises in order to warm, the Moon — to shine in the night, the river flows for to drink from it, the seas exist for the fish to breed there, etc.; the sex exist for the people and animals to breed and reproduce themselves; the man is created for to please God; and other similar things. Nothing happens just so in the nature, but with some specific purpose, and if we can not perceive it then this does not mean that there is no such purpose. If the world was not made by God then it would not have been so efficient. The sciences do not contradict to the existence of God, but serve only to explain to us the divine goals, which He has set, and which, otherwise, the weak humans could not have succeeded to understand. God has given us the reason for we to be able to conceive Him, the notion of good and evil — for to strive to the good, and the free will — for we to be able to come nearer to Him. Even the fly exists for to feed the spiders and the birds (and, maybe, to teach us to live more hygienically), the worm — for to loosen and enrich the soil, and the death — for to teach us to value more the life and to be able to come later on in the paradise or the hell, according to this, what we have deserved on this world. But then, why not to add that the nose exists for to set the glasses on it, the little finger — for to have something to ... poke in the nose, and the hands — to be able to wipe our behinds (because we can′t, hmm, lick us like the cats and dogs)? The life is result of propitious events and unlimited number of trials and errors (see again "About the Creation"), and all efforts to ascribe to it some goal or purpose are at least comical. 4. God exists in order to teach us what is good and what — bad. This is the moral argumentation of His existence, but here, too, the things go from the back to the front, or we prove something only because that is how we like it. When one does not know what is good and what bad for him, and the human being really very often does not know, then must come some omnipotent power to teach him. But if the notion for good and bad has not existed before our "dear God" has explained it to us, then from this follows that the world which He has created (with the bad in it) is not at all good, and the very God neither is a good Being. The fables about the free will of the human, because of which God has left the bad in the world, because, you see, if there is not evil then there will be nothing between what one has to choose and will behave always good, are pretty nice in theory, but does not at all justify human miseries, and, in the end, when He is God He might have devised some way so that there were free will, but also were not bads and evils, and also the humans could have done only goods! What from this, that in this way there would have not existed the reward of eternal bliss (or eternal punishment) in the "other world" — then one would have lived on this world like in the paradise. Surely this is groundless thesis. And if then the good and bad have existed before the arrival of God and the creation of our world, then God has shown no contribution to the question. It turns out that the things are easily solved if we do not mix these notions in the material world, which is such as it is, and the good and the evil are relative, as everything else, or are side products of the existence of the matter. The moral will not suffer from this, but will become what it, anyhow, is — rules for peaceful coexistence of many individuals. Only that we shall move away from the hypothesis of God, and the purpose of the task was to confirm it. 5. God is the Saviour of mankind. Despite the misfortunes on this world God is who saves the immortal souls of the people, and He has even taken a particle from Himself, begetting in this way His Son Christ in entirely human form and with human flesh, in order to be able to experience all human sufferings and later, with His death, to defeat the death. God has created not only the real world, but the paradise and the hell, and in this way has made it easy for the human to became more fully united with His divine essence. Even if we leave aside the justified with nothing hypothesis about the existence of our Christ, because there are no historical evidences for His real existence, especially credible witnesses of the moment of conception or of His resurrection, after confirmed by competent consilium of medics physical death, but we have no reasons to think that the "other world" is in something better than this one. The human being is finite creature and it isn′t at all clear whether one everlasting life (if possible) will be something good, or constant boredom, because the happiness may consist largely in the stagnation (for the reason that each transitional period is something, on the whole, bad — as we in Bulgaria have seen on the example of our transition to the democracy, that never ends), but not the everlasting stagnation, without whatever possibility for change (with the exception of those in the Purgatory, after which again comes endless boredom). There, where are no expectations and hopes for changing, can′t exist any space for expression of the free will. In other words, as much as we twist the souls, the "other world" is one eternal exile! If God was really good and omnipotent He would have devised some painless way for destruction of the soul (or deleting of its memory, if He so much does not want to throw away something good), instead of this eternal tortures (or blisses with the same effect). So that: as this world is bad, so is also the "other", and so also the relation between the two worlds is almost the worst possible, and this isn′t a salvation at all, because two millenniums after the Christ the mankind continues to kill one another as before, even in significantly greater scale. Instead of to "spoil the image" of God in this way it is better if we do not mix Him in the least in our human follies. IV. Atheism After our ascertaining that the agnosticism is a true thing and the existence of God is a matter of taste, we should not miss the other pole in the worshiping of the religions — the atheism — all the more that it is related with their future evolution or "mutation". The atheist insist that there is no God, but this also can not be proved, as the opposite, and in this sense the atheist is also a believer! This can sound paradoxically for the majority of people, including the very atheists, but this is unalloyed truth. More than this, the believers and the atheists are not entirely symmetrically opposed, where the true believers are exactly the atheists, because the existence of God, still, can be proved, if He exists and decides to show up, while the absence of God simply cannot be proved (if He does not exist)! This now must be clear, because for each thing is much easier to be proved its existence (if it is present at least in one particular case), than its absence (everywhere and always), in which connection our folks say: "go and prove you are not a camel". In the most cases there remains no other algorithm for proving of the absence except, the so called, complete search, and in our case this is impossible, for we are to "search" each one point of the infinite space and time, and by this having no idea how looks this, what we search! Let us now try to predict the future evolvement of religions, going out, of course, from some common tendency in their chronological appearance and development. This tendency is not so difficult to be noticed and it is: from the concrete — to the abstract! All primitive religions have pictured in some way their gods, where their image was dogmatically set and, of course, similar to the human or to some animals. The Hinduism also has humanlike gods, but some of them have by six limbs, and it begins to be spoken about million worlds or Universes, which can emerge from the breath of one god and be destroyed by another, where divine now becomes the truth. By the pharaohs and Ancient Greeks, as also in Hebrew religion, the gods are still quite human. But by the Christianity now appear three gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the point isn′t in their number but in the abstract image of the Spirit, which is pictured as pigeon not because looks like it, but because He has to be pictured somehow. Seven centuries after Christ emerges the Islam, which says about God only that He exists, but how He looks like — nobody can tell, for which reason in the cami-mosques can be ornaments, and this mostly outside, but the walls are bare, in order not to distract the worshipers with various pictures. In the time of Mohammed there was not science fiction and that is why he does not call Allah being from the forth dimension, but the meaning of this God is such. The widespread during 19th and 20th century (though coming from Ancient Greece) atheism rejects entirely the divine image and substitutes it with the impersonal "nature" (or substance — by Spinoza). It is true that by the atheists God disappears completely, as well as also the saints and the miracles, but there remains one His quintessence, the idea about God, in the form of natural laws, i.e. remains the most important, this what can not be destroyed. If one still wonders why the Islam makes significant progress, especially in the 20th century, then he simply does not realize how the rapid development of sciences makes untenable the strict Christian dogmas and the exact images of God. The people are still like the children and need fairy tales, but they want now something more up-today, some science fiction tale, i.e. some religion, which leaves more space for their own fantasy and thought. The Christian religion also changes, as much as she succeeds in this, diverging in quite different heresies since about 15th century, until the contemporary situation is reached where in USA in 20th century arise also some, so called, autocephalous churches, i.e. churches created by one person only, who alone is the head of it (as also its "tail", because it can′t be said that they have many followers). It turns out that the icons are not compulsory for the believers, but the everyday prayers also are not something irrevocable. The important thing is for the person to realize that he is not alone on this planet, and that the life on it does not finish with his own life! From the concrete to the abstract is the natural evolution of religions, but this is also the way through which go many of the sciences, because this is the way of our knowledge for the world. The final moment in this regard for now is the atheism, but it is not enough developed and has not many of the rituals which has each self-respecting religion, and this is the reason that it is not accepted from the masses as such, but the future is limitless (unless we alone set some limits), so that we should not reject it in a hurry as belief. And meanwhile one new religion emerged in 20th century and while the people argue whether this is a religion, whether it is good, etc., it succeeded to make its own way around the world. It goes about the communism, or rather about the Leninism, which has all characteristics of an atheistic religion. It bred out of Marx′s "ghost of communism", but began to exist as religion in the time of Lenin in the young Soviet state, went through periods of persecutions and prosecutions, created his own saints, succeeded to establish itself as official religion on a vast territory of the globe, and now goes around in the "third" world searching suitable soil for its prospering. It has no gods, but has natural laws, which are no less implacable than the gods; has no wonders, but has the wonders of the sciences, which are no less astonishing than those of the gods; has no prayers, but has wishes, strivings and ideals, which have no weaker impact on the masses. It is true, that in regard of the rituals there is much to be desired, but its active existence is only about 80 years, and what are 80 years for a religion? It isn′t now ruling religion in the ex-communist countries, but this does not mean that it doesn′t still rule "the hearts and minds" of the people (well-worn stereotype, but, in general, true), because the collapse of the communist system was simply signal for its separating from the state, as it has happened in the Renaissance with the Christian religion in the whole Western world. It has morality, has utopianism, has idea of sin, has afterlife ("the bright communist future") has goal — the happiness of the people, causes stagnation (as each other religion), and the stagnation is especially important when some civilization (as the contemporary) goes away, it is sufficiently tolerant to the others (i.e. genuine) religions, preaches ascetic way of life on this world, and is a real refuge for the weak or less developed countries and nations. It had even their own censoring bodies and inquisition, as each other ruling religion. Whether and up to what extent it will exist — the future will show. But many things in it can remain, even the five rayed star, because this is widespread and old symbol and exists on the American banner (though the Americans run away from the communism "as the devil from the incense", but this is because they are wealthy country and nobody there wants to be poor), besides the Pentagon is, in fact, one "pentagonal star with cut out rays" (or in the reverse way — the five rayed star is an upgraded pentagon). The red colour is in nothing worse than the blue one (it′s allusion to the modern in the first democratic years Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces, UDF), for example, and about the party houses — nobody has said that they must be built only in "Stalinist" style (or "Communist Gothic") and can be shaped also like space stations, if you want. The future of mankind is one much more tangible ideal than the afterlife, because each one, in any case, tries to leave something behind (at least some child), and the total abstraction of the god-nature does never endanger to fall out of mode because of changing of the tastes. The most precious asset of the human is his labour and this is uncontestable truth, and the highest happiness (for each sufficiently reasonable individual, who can "exceed" his mortal shell) is the happiness of the others, because this is the mutual or shared happiness, and it is something that can outlive him, leaving some trace amongst the other people. The contradiction between the faith, which each religion requires, and the reason, which the very human nature requires, is not so hardly to overcome (as, say, the contradiction between the sexes, or the generations), because the faith can be stipulated by the way of the reason, and the reason to exist based on the belief (in it). More than this, exactly the symbiosis between faith and reason in the communist atheistic religion, or in some of its descendants, including the contradiction in itself, can make this religion live and long lasting. And the fact, that it does not set any racial, financial, sexual, intellectual, and other differences (except, maybe, the necessity for the worshipers to be not significantly wealthier than the others, but this is easily surmountable), makes it entirely accessible for each weak, but more or less rational human. So that the religion is opium for the people, but until they do not show that they don′t need this opium, it will take a central place in the social life of the people. But judging by the omnivorousness and naivety, with which the masses devour the advertisements, that are offered to them, there are all reasons to suppose that they will always need religion. The religion is harmful when there collide severe two different religions and begin to fight war (because, for example, one group of people were breaking the egg from the sharp end and another one — from the blunt one), but otherwise some measure of delusion about life is vitally necessary for the people in order to be able to live it, and, in this sense, each religion does good work, because one will never reject the delusion, if he likes it. Until a given society is divided in contradictory structures with different interests (and this will always take place, because the humans are created different in their tastes, interests, and abilities, and exactly this variety is the most valuable thing in this world), till then it will need something uniting and binding together its members. Until one needs support and purpose in life he will need also some religion. But he will always have such need because he is not a God. — — — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/