"What divides us is not that we do not find no God, neither in history nor in nature, or behind nature - but that what he was worshiped as a God we do not are all "divine", but rather pitiful, absurd, harmful, not only because it is a mistake, but because it is a crime against life ... " Nietzsche. Genesis of a religion.
Assume that a man be born "in default". He then postulates that there is Good and Evil, clearly distinguished between itself, that there are means to produce good and others bad.
It claims to know with certainty, to state clearly, by tradition or divine revelation - or angels, or alien - which is good and what means are or are not allowed to reach it.
is made a religion! Then
usually takes their time nell'imporla to others and / or despise the unlucky half of the world who does not share this view. This recipe
do-it-yourself to create a religion is recognized, more or less at all, as implemented in order to create false beliefs (ie all except their own particular ...), while the vision is true for evidence ".
Yeah, forgot that two essential ingredients:
- claim to be holders of the only "true" knowledge.
- "prove" the concepts on which it is based, proclaiming them clear, obvious, certain, natural, universal emphasis, raising the tone, accused of pervert anyone disagrees, hypnotically repeating until the acceptance of exhaustion.
That finding as not to embarrass any believer ever - which is limited to be grateful to belong to "one true way" - is epistemologically highly unsatisfactory.
As a theological argument differ much from a mathematical proof, they have one thing in common: both are based on " axioms and postulates."
aspects in common, however, end here, as the mathematics - the aim is to know, do not show to be right - it has always been questioned about the real evidence of his axioms to prove the point, with non-Euclidean geometries , substantial inconsistency of one of them.
Ma .. if these findings were far from obvious religious ...?
Well, I mean, thousands of years of wars, burnings, inquisitions and social intolerance, to speculate on where the commas should be taking for granted the soundness of the premises ...
The "original sin"
In historical terms, the invention of original sin is usually attributed to St. Augustine. Before him is not found in Christian texts of the words nor the concept of inheritance of the sin of Adam.
Here, however, I'm not interested in doctrinal disquisitions but what is the first of those doctrines (not just Christian or pseudo ones), the axioms on which they are based. Or in this case the concept of original sin, in its broad interpretation, free from the interpretations, as summarized birth "in default" of every human being.
The natural human imperfection, through a sleight of dialectic, becomes a "fault"; the possibility of evolution becomes a "redemption." Yet the connection is rhetorical, not logical.
would certainly be unacceptable to say that the human being is born perfect and complete, because this assertion is contradicted by observation. However to infer from this that this shows his sin, his "fall", its need for a reunion with some aspect of God is only a syllogism. Before
still quibble about how this is possible or not the formal error is in assuming that axiom. The most common limiting religious settings, the dichotomous view, allows the syllogism: if we are not perfect then we are sinners.
Thus, the neutral finding the need to improve their nature is "enriched" anything but a result of shades, only to be engulfed in cosmogonies far from proven. What might be the precious opportunity to reflect on oneself is lost. Consciously or not it is, the fear of the unknown, which necessarily deals with a real research, he preferred all'affrontarlo, the clinging to a certainty. Even the most terrifying of them may be preferable to 'horror vacant. Better considered sinners who think about who has the better tests that look unlikely to accept.
The Good and Evil.
"good and evil," "good and bad" "Wrong and incorrect" are relative terms. That assessment of the effects of an action within a given context, according to an established meter. It is the "meter", the unit of measurement, which gives meaning to the terms. Just like for "High and Low", "narrow and deep", "young and old, need a discriminatory term. We can represent geometrically
this second pair in a line to the imaginary details of which will be the climax of the two terms. In this case, they would write with a capital: the Broad and the Straits, for example. This mechanism, on these terms, in addition to be a little 'funny, has no side effect as they have an unambiguous, used to measure objects. The
all, namely that the geometric representation - as we well know - is frequently applied to the first couple of terms, thus opening the Good and Evil. The fact in this case, however, is full of consequences ...
Yeah, because these terms do not measure, like its predecessors, the objects, but evaluation of the actions, and life is not "live" in the two dimensions of the line.
do not need to quibble at the moment than are the dimensions in which life is expressed, since even the three, I believe that no one can deny, are quite sufficient to clarify the concept. The linear representation is fallacious, if not in its consequences, aberrant.
The - no coincidence - more tolerant and peaceful Taoist view of good and evil, the Tao is geometrically represented: there is no good without evil and no evil without good.
We bring more than the concept of geometric representation but, as regards the scope of this post, the above is sufficient.
is postulated that the world is arbitrarily divided into good and evil, and unfortunately, in addition to personally pay the consequences they charge to other ...
Knowledge of Good and Evil and actions "appropriate."
The arbitrary assumptions already taken action to have a major effect, however, the omelet is not made until do not take to "know".
Who does not know, search, investigate, discover, and sometimes lies. Socrates, knowing they will not know , it deserved to be appealed " the wisest of all men .
But this is a long, laborious and requires humility.
Also with it you are at most research groups (which, by adopting them, they will certainly not immune from the effects of the previous two axioms ...) does not create religions.
To create them, so that he should be given explicitly by name, so that we do so, the presumption should be to "know". Thus there appears
definitions and interpretations, dogmas and requirements.
They "argue" (...) With the two essential ingredients mentioned above.
Following them is good, purple and evil, under the claim that they generate and are both required by Good or Evil. This creates a cycle that is self-referential, in which the premises justify the consequences and vice versa.
conclusions.
At this point you are ready, religion - whatever it is - is served. You are ready to submit it to the believers who do not even have to bother to create it. Just enter the circle that they mentioned that every perception is influenced by it, and they lost all contact with the exiles from it. The dichotomy took effect, every other aspect is confined to oblivion.
Everything was labeled and, frequently, the label "black" is right on the aspects that make us more alive. Any serious question is off, soothed by sicumere that replaced it.
The various factions are ready to declare war.
"Humanity takes itself too seriously. It is the original sin of the world. If the caveman had known laugh, the story would have a different course." Oscar Wilde.
0 comments:
Post a Comment