Religious Topics in the Twenty First Century Yoji K Gondor Engineer (retired) Philosopher, Author Email: gondork@yahoo.com January 1, 2015 Abstract: With all the obstacles and challenges it has suffered, the modern religion is an integral part of our lives. Are the religions and the new technical developments in any form of reasonable harmony? There is nothing greater than infinity, nothing more mysterious than the infinite space or time, and nothing more mysterious than the Creator. In this way, it seems that there is a symbolic correlation connecting the concept of infinity and the transcendental vision of the mighty Creator. Is the God's inspired word from a sacred book vulnerable to the "deconstruction" prejudice so elegantly exposed by Jacques Derrida? Some answers this essay try to touch. About Our Universe's Creation1 People are many and diverse, and all, collectively, are what is called humanity. Humanity's search for understanding of our universe has included the exploration for the origin of our world and for the Creator of our universe. Religion identifies the Creator by many names: God, Buddha, Allah, Baha, and so on, with the note that most religions envision the Creator as a singular entity. From a transcendental argument of the existence of the Creator to the religious belief of pious human behavior as required by the Creator's revelations is a long way. No human thing is of serious importance. -Plato For the most part religions have their structure rooted in miracles, myths, superstition, or indisputable belief. All this confirms and reinforces the patterns of a traditional religion. They also stimulate the imagination, invalidate the gap between a dream and actuality, and provide a small opening to a mystical world inhabited by the gods, the dead, and the spirits.2 The pursuit for understanding the nature of the 1 A chapter from The Delude – Yoji K Gondor 2 Mircea Eliade, 1951. Creator has taken metaphysical or spiritual pathways, sometimes ignoring, or even rejecting, the proper scientific evidence that is also essential for a sound understanding. At times, the ritualistic approach of discovery shifts to a metaphysical form of enquiry regarding the Creator, and that implies a transcendental extension of the intellect toward the concept of infinity, which is obviously impenetrable. Because of that, the metaphysical path to discover our Creator is unmanageable. Hitherto, the relation with the Creator was based mostly on the mystical spirituality of religion that was not restricted by the boundaries that lead to magical or metaphysical consideration of the Creator. Be not deceived, even what is regarded as magic conforms to the laws of nature, even when understanding of the way is unidentified. From the point of scientific method, we have difficulties in establishing the nature of the Creator, while the sound integration of mysticism, metaphysics, and science seems to be residing only in the realm of imagination. Here we must admit that true religion is a very private and personal experience aiming at harmony and the complete truth, and it can become a personal and intimate path toward the search for the wisdom and the spirit of the Creator. At times, humanity accepts a religion that is unmistakably in contradiction to the scientific fact that leads to an erroneous interpretation of the Creator's nature. Some religious divides were not merely restricted to the members of a single group but were expanded against entire countries or, inward, have been extended across the threshold of homes, setting families against each other-even placing father against son or mother against daughter. Particular groups tried to gather all humanity to join in their religion, while other religions were on the path of annihilation of anyone who did not share their views. We must state now that a number of religions groups have unfortunately chosen a long path that undertakes them further and further from the legitimate way of getting to apprehend and achieve closeness to the wisdom required to understand our Creator. In the search for our Creator, we must, in addition to religious revelation, follow the path of logical and scientific discovery; that will provide for us the eternal legitimate and complete truth concerning the nature of the creation. By abandoning logical inquiry, our search can wander in the deep darkness of illusion that takes us further and further from our purpose. This is what the deluded fool commonly does. There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same. -Asian proverb As Saint Augustine distinctively articulated, an interpretation of religious wisdom must be revised when it confronts properly formulated scientific knowledge. This is especially valid when a new scientific paradigm emerges: this requires that the previous scientific learning be revised or even discarded. Hitherto, scientific wisdom has been volatile, and that is a justified reason for the religious doctrine to remain unwavering-in the hope that new scientific discovery will reconcile with the religious way. In some particular cases, we must discard proven scientific wisdom that is well connected to rationality to allow for dogmatic religious belief; this is not a true religious belief but the belief of the deluded fool. Any true religious belief is required to satisfy the requirement of rational thinking. A logical contradiction with physical reality provided by our senses indicates that we deviated from the right path of discovering the Creator and we now follow the deluded fools' way. It is self-evident that when we grasp that our understanding of the universe amounts to about nothing, then, in fact, we know something. We say that the universe started from nothing-the creation ex nihilo. Nothing itself is impossible not to exist; the concept of nothing is at least a word. In mathematics, the representation of nothing is zero; zero is a number, a part of the foundation of mathematics. 'Nothing' is not a number, is it a part of the reality? Can nothing exist as itself and be more than a word? In this context, nothing may point only to physical matter, or may possibly include a spiritual component as well? The creation of the material universe from nothing implies that the Creator does not meet our usual physical anticipation, and that it existed beyond the concept of nothingness, and it must have existed in an immaterial state only (spiritual) if the Creator's existence is to be logically justified. If our Creator formed all the fundamental material particles from his action alone, then the Creator cannot be material unless he created himself as well. To support an argument that the universe was created, we must accept that the universe cannot be infinite unless we accept that the Creator also created itself, and it is part of the universe that was created. Can matter be created by action alone or by some action that springs from an immaterial cause? In Einstein's famous formula, e=mc2, there is a direct equality relationship between matter and energy. Can we infer that matter can emerge from nothing else but energy alone? The light ray, due to its dual characteristics, seems to be a link that can connect the non-material world/energy with the material one. We can also question if the Creator is a being or a magnificent process. Some hypotheses forward the opinion that the universe was created by the big bang and that the expansion of the universe is presently ongoing. This theory is based on the former existence of a dense singularity and its expansion that has created some cosmic object that we call universe. Nevertheless, the singularity by itself can be seen as the universe itself; its expansion is a transformation, a change, to the state of the universe and not an act of creation. If we indeed exist, consequently, the Creator of our universe exists but not in a strict interpretation that stems from a narrow interpretation of the universe or the Creator; that has as its basis in imagination, fear, or downright ignorance. There was a need for the Creator's acknowledgement as the originator of the universe. If the Creator is eternal, the universe, the Creator's work, is not guaranteed to be eternal as well. The famous Saint Anslem's sentence, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," incorporates the vast unknown in human understanding; therefore, the unknown is attributed to the Creator. One common concept also satisfies the Saint Anslem's sentence, and that is the widely used concept of infinity. There is nothing greater than infinity, nothing more mysterious than the infinite space or time, and nothing more mysterious than the Creator. In this way, it seems that there is a symbolic correlation connecting the concept of infinity and the transcendental vision of the mighty Creator. It is undoubtedly beyond human capabilities to comprehend the vast complexity of our universe from our remote place in the galaxy. We must follow the universal laws of nature and learn what is possible about our world. Finding the Creator's place in our universe can be revealed to us by careful attention to our world: using the power of our mind and origin in our endeavor of scientific discovery and logic. Is life in our solar system self-contained, or is it part of the life present in the entire universe? The distance between stellar systems is immense. This would deter earth-like life forms from spreading among cosmic objects and make it nearly unattainable for the life forms that exist on our planet to propagate and continue their existence in the other part of the universe. The conditions that originated the emergence of life in our solar system are probable to be general in the entire universe. Therefore, the conditions for initiating life are present universally. Here we assume that every small part of the universe represents the properties of the entire universe, and that is not a guaranteed generalization. Is the duration of creation small or about instant or does it imply some duration? The creation of life might not be on an interval scale easily comprehended by us, the humans. In fact, the creation of life on earth might not be yet completed, and our struggle to understand our imperfections is just our absence of understanding the facts about this event. Potentially, our solar system was created directly by the Creator; however, the emergence of life happened much later and was independent of the original system's creation; that was due to the intrinsic properties and qualities of our solar system. The theory of evolution hypothesizes that life evolved from some previous condition to some new and improved biological structure. The theory of evolution does not apply to material or lifeless objects and does not account for the change from an inert material state to the new condition of life. Creation is not evolution. Creation implies changes from the inert physical material form to a new state-the life form. Life could not begin its evolution if it was not first created, and therefore, both theories are valid, even though the mystery of the creation processes is not agreeably comprehended yet. Furthermore, can the evolution be an afterward stage of the initial creation process, and therefore, the creation is still ongoing? From the initial stage of life creation, there is a long road and there must be mysterious transformations before arriving at the life form we call a human being. Perhaps it is improper to say, but evolution has been observed also in the case of technological progress. Most new products are an improvement (an evolution) with regard to the previous version. For example, computers are continuously improving the performance of the new released models, and that can be characterized as technological evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply asserts that entropy in a system increases with time, I wonder if evolution is factually a path to introduce unmanageable complexity in a system and therefore, a component that leads to unsuspected obliteration. To apprehend the universal truth, the intellect must possess infinite power since it extends its understanding from the particular to the infinite. That is not credibly possible, and it raises uncertainty regarding our limits toward the prospect of consistent sound understanding. The uncertainty is not about the Creator's obligatory nature but about the Creator's questionable actuality. Could the universe self-create itself from nothing and not be assembled from matter already created? There is no doubt that the Creator is in harmony with his own creation. Also, the Creator is in harmony with the laws of nature and with scientific discovery-things that the Creator itself established. Also, we must acknowledge that our physical world, the object of the Creator's accomplishment, cannot be eternal in this state as the view that nothing is permanent but change itself is widely accepted. In various religions, the wisdom regarding the Creator's revelation is found in holy books that are translated in numerous languages. Jacques Derrida's deconstruction concept affirms that we routinely dismantle some text and then reconstruct it ourselves in a new personal context. In this way, the translation becomes merely a personal interpretation. Even more, deconstruction denies the possibility of an exact translation due to the dualistic hierarchies embedded in the original version of the text, and therefore, much meaning is lost in the translated books. This is a very serious and unresolved religious matter. A committed effort toward the rigorous analysis of the literal meaning of a text and also the search for hidden meaning in the neglected parts of the text sometimes point toward discovery of alternate new meanings. Often the detail that is found (and the meaning of it) gains more significance than the full text that also incorporates the detail and gains illogical meaning when isolated from the context in which its meaning was created. At times, text meanings are potentially veiled under the metaphorical attribute of the text and are not logically sound as direct literary translations. It is no wonder that various religious believers travel to the original place of initiation of a religious faith. Being in the original location of the religious acts must be comforting, and it also places the believer in the true spatial context of the religious act; it helps acquire a better understanding and provides avoidance of the wrong meaning or interpretation. Pilgrimages to holy sites have a deep and true meaning and are essential for the genuine religious experience. By discovering his or her power of the intellect, man or woman placed himself or herself as a grandiose focal point of the universe-as the greatest creation of our Creator. For any man or woman, any point could be viewed as a center of the earth; likewise, to any observer at sea, the horizon seems to be equally distant in all directions, regardless of the position of observation. Looking around on a starry night, we might have the feeling that the distance is even in all directions and we are in the middle, in the center, of the cosmic space. Any exploration must have a starting point for any spatial orientation, and that is why our planet is the origin in all our exploration-either religious or scientific. For the profane, perhaps the realization of the big bang has provided a new special point as the center of our expanding universe, while the center of our inquiry and exploration retains its start from our planet-a place long established in our experiences. Therefore, the concept that man or woman is in the center of the universe is potentially valid and based on our deeply entrenched view of the world. In that regard, we must declare that the man or woman, his or her planet, and the world are forever situated as our point of origin toward the mysterious space. Regardless of how long the path toward finding out about the Creator, the scope of the travel is to discover the true nature of the universe creation. It is also obvious that man cannot discover the act of creation unless it is so desired and allowed by the Creator. Is the struggle among religions an attempt to prove that the only path to the Creator is by following their own distinct ways? It is not appropriate to say that "only one road leads to Rome" when we know the metaphor is that "all roads lead to Rome." In the same way, all religions anticipate understanding of the Creator. We can imagine an invisible man; the invisible cannot be perceived by our external visual sense, but it can be sensed by the mind. The invisible man is not an innate idea, and it has its roots in the external and also the internal mental world of the mind. The invisible man is a man and also has the attribute of not being detected by our vision senses; however, it is possible that it can be distinguished by hearing, touching, etc. If it cannot be detected by all external senses, then can we call it reality? Some entities, as the Creator is, are detected only by the cognitive qualities of the mind alone and are not detected by our external sensual perceptions. How can we be sure that the Creator is, when we are required to detect reality by the use of our external senses? Is the contrary also true that we can detect an object by our senses, while the mind refuses to acknowledge its existence? We also must agree that, at times, we assume that what we can't perceive does not exist: a dog with five legs, for example. We certainly can't see electricity, but we must admit its existence by its cause-and-effect connecting principle. We can state that the Creator has not been an entity possible to be sensed as a perception, or we, the humans, could not identify such an occurrence. The Creator can be defined as an objective truth reflected by the power of the mind. Unless we accept the mind itself as a way for some inferred sensual perception, we must agree that the Creator is not perceivable by our senses. . Some religions have their foundation on strict interpretation of religious doctrines that base their judgment on inflexible opinions which are contrary to any formal way of judgment, illogical, and unmistakably outside scientific thought. This is the common condition associated with the deluded fools' religion-a religion that can be in deep conflict with common law and scientific principles. One of the universal misunderstandings is that some heretics suppose that scientific inquiry is not, and cannot be, a legitimate religious activity. To assume infinite power to the Creator is a simple solution and provides an answer to every question or unknown thought about our world. It is a very simple and convenient way to reduce all inquiries of everything, including the unknown, to an irrefutable belief or justification. From a transcendental argument of the existence of the Creator to the religious belief of pious human behavior as required by the Creator, it is a long way that cannot be followed on a rational route. Does religion emerge from the transcendental capability of human mind? True happiness lies in what is eternal; therefore, the search for happiness can lead us to acceptance of the promise for eternal life. I tie the concept of the existence of the Creator with an assumption of our wishful desire for eternal life. Is seeking the eternal life by our religious belief an attempt to gain independence from the cruelty of time? How is a human to live in a world dominated by chaos, suffering, and absurdity without the hope for guaranteed future tranquility? Therefore, the concept of heaven was necessary as a place where happiness is to be realized and where eternal life is not only possible, but it is also a promise. No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony is of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact that it endeavors to establish. -David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding My grandmother Maria, a person of whom I have memories that I deeply cherish, told me that during a storm fish and frogs were falling from the sky along with the rain. She asked me not to share this with others out of concern that I would become a target of ridicule since the fact was not believable. Was this a miracle? Even though this story can be seen as doubtful, I have not questioned the truth of the matter. After a few years and some reflection, I became aware again of her story, and I came to a possible logical explanation: some tornado/twister might have been the cause of the fish being lifted from a pond and moved to the atmosphere, and later, they were falling down in a distant place. I am wondering at the concept of a miracle. We may regard a highly unusual event a miracle when we have difficulties in arriving to the proper understanding of its cause? The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but also even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. -David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding The need for the existence of the Creator as the initiator of the entire universe perhaps started as a sensible idea meant to provide the need for particular understanding of the universe-a task that probably greatly surpasses our natural abilities. Yes, we need an undeniably good answer for all creation questions about the unknown, and a way is to assign it to the all-powerful Creator. The deluded fool's unquestioned belief in the absolute correctness of his or her inflexible religious beliefs, and therefore a personal view of the Creator, can come near a state of mental incapacitation: in other words, a borderline mental disorder. From a skeptical view, some hypothesis of the creation of the universe transcends and rejects the materialistic perspective, and that is called faulty science. Some religions assume that the Creator is presently and closely involved in the activities of our personal lives. The skeptic can reasonably doubt the Creator's involvement in our private life by pointing out that all the prayers in the world can't crack a nut, or that the Creator can easily transform a boat into a house but is not known to have ever done so. If the Creator did not like the people of the world, he has the power to send misfortune and destroy them. But it does not; there are many people all over the world. That alone is enough proof that the Creator loves the humanity he created-if he is as envisioned by various religions. In our imaginations, fantasies, or dreams we can regard ourselves as the most important creation of the Creator-a selfish and perhaps arrogant belief however, an eternal component of human existence. The earth has not ended with the stop of some forms of life-as the dinosaur's existence-but has changed along with other forms of life and other species. Now the human is the dominant species on earth; however, there is no guarantee that the future holds a place for human life on earth, and we should not imply that humans are a necessary species for life on earth to persist. It might be the other way, for the life on our planet to continue the human race is obligatory to become extinct. We can't deny the possibility of anything justifying that on skepticism alone. From only a materialistic point, the creation of the universe is unfeasible to validate, and therefore, the need to allow other theories is necessary.3 To be valid, a theory about the creation of universe must be anchored in the space of natural sciences; it must exit the metaphysical space, and must be confined to the predictable view of scientific discovery. Furthermore, any theory for the creation of universe must satisfy the necessities of the reasoned fact paradigm and also the materialistic view of the matter of fact; otherwise, it must be discarded, as we have no valid logical ground to initiate our judgment. Before we accept a theory for the creation of the universe, we must eliminate any conflict between empirical observations and the logical component. 3 Materialism asserts that matter cannot be created from nothing; however, materialistically, a new form of matter is merely a transformation. The emergence of matter only from energy alone does not satisfy the materialistic paradigm.