On Religious Thought, Part 1

Although the gradual change in my religious thinking was hastened by my introduction to philosophy etc. it was then delayed by the early years of my marriage. I’ve mentioned earlier that this was probably the result of the church compromise that Jean and I made as part of our family life, to provide a kind of church background for our three daughters. Another factor doubtless was that these were busy days of work at Shell and family responsibilities. The time and opportunity for reflection on religion and philosophical matters was quite limited.

This situation changed after the retirement to Ashland with the increase time available for such activity. And of course, Laurel was living with us for only her last three years in high school. I had often thought, and perhaps remarked, that a further delving into philosophy would be a part of retirement, but this has turned out to be quite limited. I think this is in part due to my gradually reaching the conclusion that most philosophical thought up until the time of Darwin suffered from an inadequate informational base and consequently much of the thinking could only be speculative. Thus, though it is of interest historically, a good part of it is no longer germane. A few years ago (about 1988 I believe) I audited a course at the college on the philosophy of religion. This experience plus my own thinking prior to and after the course has more or less systematized my thinking on religion. While the conclusions I have reached may still be modified, I do not expect them to change significantly in the years (or time) ahead of me.

My primary conclusion with regard to religion and specifically Christianity is that it is completely a man-made area of thought and that there is no indication whatsoever that it was transmitted to humankind by some deity. My first reason for reaching this conclusion involves the cause/effect relationship. The fundamentals of this relationship have been neglected in religious thought, as they very often are in many of man’s activities.

With respect to religion, specifically Christianity though applying in a general way to all religions, my thinking starts with the observation that religion typically pictures a creation process in which some pre-existing deity forms the universe, and make the solar system, the earth and the various forms of life on earth. In Christianity, man is the final step in creation and occupies a special place and has the special attribute of free will. The latter is the capacity to either accept or deny the aspects of religion as presented and to have as a result certain consequences applied either as salvation or damnation. This capacity is supposed to separate the deity from the results of man’s choice with regard to religion and to make man’s future independent of what the deity would choose or be responsible for.

This conclusion cannot be farther from the actual situation than possible. Inasmuch as the pre-existing deity created the world and everything in it, the basic elements of the cause/effect/responsibility relationship make the originating deity completely, totally, inescapably responsible for everything that transpires. Since the deity is the sole originating element, everything that occurs is the result directly or indirectly of the deity’s actions. The introduction of free will in the case of mankind does nothing to eliminate the deity’s responsibility for everything that transpires as the result of free will and its exercise by man. The deity is just as responsible for the excess of Hitler as it is for the Toccata and Fugue in D minor of Johann Sebastian Bach. What amazes me if that mankind has placed such a determining effect on free will in separating the deity from the consequences of the deity’s actions when such separation is so obviously invalid. It is indeed a sad commentary on the army of theologians that they have not realized this, nor significantly considered the implications of the total cause/effect/responsibility relationship.

If free will does actually exist, it does provide a basis for ascertaining what is “good” or “evil” in the relationships between individual humans. The characteristic of humans as being derivative rather than originating beings makes their status fundamentally different from that of the deity. The deity has the responsibility for everything. Humans have responsibility only relative to humans. In a way the appreciation of this limited responsibility, and the mistaken transfer of this responsibility toward the deity is the ultimate reason that all religion is the product of man’s fallible reasoning. No deity worthy of the attribute of wisdom applied to it would ever countenance such foolishness as the thesis that free will separates the deity from the total responsibility it has for everything that has occurred or will occur.