Dear Roger, Alain and everyone,
I hope all are by now clear that religion is not what most religions have become in the course of time, particularly now that this degraded age seems to be nearing its end. In a way, they are rather particular phenomena of our time in that they respond to either the needs of their adherents (or sometimes of their founders or hierarchies) or, in a wider sense, to the challenges it poses. In some extreme cases they are no more than excrescences born of deviate minds.
Generally speaking, it is the same with all religions, even the three or four main religions that we all more or less adhere to which emerged around a great and saintly personality like Jesus Christ or Buddha or Muhammad. The Hindus have it clear when they say that every age has the religion it deserves, though I would not say "deserves" but "needs". This does not mean that any religion is superior or inferior, but that they were intended to be followed by the intellectually and morally superior or inferior people of every age. You may ask, intended by whom? Well, by no other than God himself. Or we may think of a Cosmic Mind that as every age ends and a new one starts, assesses the historical juncture and foresees the planetary needs for well into the future.
Consider, for example, the cases of Christianity and Buddhism. Does it not seem as if they both were born not only for the special people and the circumstances of their time but also to endure long enough, in fact millennia, and to separately influence, each of them, an immense chunk of our planet in order to arrive more or less unscathed into our very present time?
And with this thought-provoking proposition, I will leave it at this point
. I would like to show now a text I found in a blog called "Convergenism."
"Who would have thought that Einstein, of all people, was religious? I’m reading a book on his views, lectures, and life examples that illustrated his belief in a God. I would say he was more of a Hindu or a Buddhist. He believed in a “cosmic religion” which basically means that God IS the Universe. The awe-inspired by God is equivalent to him as the awe-inspired by the universe as a whole.
Clearly he was amazed at the great complexity and beauty found in the universe at a macro and microscopic level. How he differed from western religion was in that he refused to believe there was a “personal” God who uniquely and intentionally affected our lives. He felt that God set the universal laws in place, more specifically, God is the laws, and through the laws he affects us.
I’m not completely convinced that God is not a personal God. I do believe that God and the universe are one. In my understanding, the Bible says this in not so many words. How else could God be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipowerful? However, I’m not convinced that the Universe is all there is to God. Perhaps the universe is just one attribute of God.
The uncertainty principle shows that there are unknowns that contradict his views on a completely deterministic universe. What controls these unknowns is still undiscovered, but Einstein was ardently against it to the point where he tried to refute it publicly. He was unsuccessful.
Ultimately, Einstein took a lot of heat for his stand on an “impersonal” God. I’m not quite sure why he was so adamant about it. As a scientist, he had no proof for or against it. He’s entitled to his faith in an impersonal God, but he should have allowed for the possibility."
No author mentioned, no precise explanation what the blog is all about except for the text itself. If I have copied it is just because these paragraphs more or less beautifully summarize my beliefs in:
a) A personal God (in spite of Einstein personal belief);
b) God as being both the Universe and Himself. Here I am partially with Einstein but I also believe, with the author and the Hindus, that God is simultaneously something else; and
b) What is known as "Universal Determinism." Whether it is complete or not remains an open question.
Note that so far in this post I only have touched the great historical religions, i.e. those that appeared late in the course of human civilization, about three thousand years after civilization "officially" started (in 3000 - 3100 b.C).* And that if we want to know what this civilization's original religion was, we need to go back to that date of 3000-3100 b.C., just about the time when the civilizations of Mohenho-daro and Harappa in India, and Caral in Peru, emerged to the world. I intend this to be the subject of next posts.
Thank you,
Luis Miguel Goitizolo
* The exception is, of course, Hinduism, which curiously enough computes the beginning of their Kali Yuga, the age of degradation in which we are supposed to be now, at a very similar date: 3102 b.C. If we are to believe this, so far the Kali Yuga would be encompassing the entire length of what we in the West know as the history of civilization.