(From some philosophical reading)

One perplexing and apparently unanswerable question faced, usually with a wince and a shudder, by organized religions concerns prayer and its alleged influence with any "supreme being" that might be (though I insist isn't) out there. According to much of ancient wisdom, the scriptures, the old and new testaments, and so on, "god", from infinity, directs and ordains everything, which occurs in each of our lives from before birth until well after death. We are puppets to his (or her) "divine" whim. Yet, we're punished for sin! How can we "sin" if all our actions are supposedly programmed by a "heavenly father"?

Furthermore, how can we continue to "petition the lord with prayer" if we mere mortals are considered by our "higher power" to be unworthy of the realization of prayer?

The dilemma here, which, apparently, has so far gone unanswered by any theologian that I know of, begs the question: what is the human race about, free will or determinism? If free will is conceded, then there is no all-embracing power, "higher" or otherwise to prevent or encourage (to determine) the free will of any individual on the planet nor in the universe since this alleged deity would also be subject to the same constraints regarding thought and action as are we mortals thus indicating that any supposed deity is, essentially, nothing but a powerless abstract. If, on the other hand, the entire history of the universe from beginning to end has been, and presumably still is, predetermined and orchestrated by a "higher power", then what use is prayer? Why pray over what has already been determined? And what good is faith if one of the purported reasons for its conception was the worship of "god" through the influence of prayer??!!

One key to maintaining and directing ones faith and belief in any deistic religion (and the fact of an observable and proveable religious organization, whatever its title and ideology rather than any "unknowable" deity is all one can have faith in) is ones choice and acceptance of one of the mutually exclusive ideas of "free will" or "determinism". Theologians have been debating these ideas since the first deistic notions began overwhelming human common sense. Are we totally free to think, act and react as we wish, as we must, unencumbered by any supernatural divinity? Or is every thought and action ever propagated by mankind, plant and animal since the beginning of time predetermined universally up to the end of time by the above-noted "unknowable" deity(s)?

If we are indeed free (as I most certainly believe) to exercise our own will, our own ideas, our own actions and reactions, then we, by logical extension, cannot assume any sort of divinity even exists, let alone is able or willing to help us or to guide us at any point in our chaotic existence. What we have are the mortal notions of "divine guidance". We realistically use the facts of instinct and conscience, collectively and individually, to direct our myriad thoughts and activities, as every living being, human, plant and animal in the universe uses its instincts and its will in obvious self-determination. The idea of free will (and of determinism) is just that, an idea. An idea cannot perform an act, can't end up as an observable result except through the actions of mortals. It seems obvious then, that mortal beings generate an idea (through instinct?), mortal beings act on that idea and mortal beings observe, benefit by or suffer the consequences of that idea. No "gods" of any type can be involved with the formulation or the execution of any individual thought or reaction; these are functions of undirected mortality from start to finish. All we can possibly derive from the notions of divinities are the self-generated excuses and credit for our own freely conceived and perpetrated actions. Even allegedly restrictive cultures (theocracies, dictatorships, monarchies, etc.) while limiting many of the actions and expressions of free will, cannot confine every thought and ideal common to all living things, no matter their circumstances. Could deistic determinism possibly find redeeming and reverential value in suicide, for example? The taking of ones own life seems one of the more definitive statements one could make rejecting repression and in support of personal freedom and idealism.

If one still wishes, after all that, to base their existence, their outlook, their being on a self-concieved ideal of deistic determinism...well, I pity your ignorence.

Thomas Huxley tried to point out the reasons why religions (especially christianity) are such an illogical conglomeration of inconsistencies and contradictions. He concluded that religion generally, and christianity in particular, made no sense in its present state. He did, however, concede that christianity was, on the whole, a progressive and healthy thing for mankind in that it defined the righteousness and morality and goodness which, I believe, had logically been recognized by our cave-dwelling ancestors long before the conception of christianity. Now, I will not go as far as Nietzsche, where he propositioned that religion (in general), and christianity (in particular), as the deadly foe of the natural evolution of a "super-class" of human being, should be violently eradicated from the face of the earth. Although Nietzsche had some interesting philosophical arguments before he went nuts, he's a little too radical for my taste. I have, however, come to certain conclusions concerning religion which fall somewhere between the thoughts of Huxley and Nietzsche. I see christianity (and most other organized religions) as another divisive, sexist, illogical, mystical "ism" aimed at the masses of you out there who are too self-satisfied and lazy to reason out on your own what you individually consider to be a worthy person, place, thing or ideal of individual faith and spirituality based on historical veracity and reasoned observation and contemplation. Such faith and spirituality, should they be acknowledged, ought to be, I believe, free of the lifelong dictates and machinations of organized religion.

In this age of media saturation and instant, world-wide information sharing, and because I happen to live in a relatively "free" and "open" society, I have been an observer, either intentionally or unintentionally, of many different events, in real time and historically, throughout my lifetime, which have convinced me that there are too many greedy, deranged, bigoted and just plain intolerant individuals with too much power (either psychological or physical) and influence over masses of others in this era of overpopulation and Big Brother. This control is just as apparent in religion as it is in any government, corporation or media. Through this misuse of power, there has also been a lessening (to the point of near-disappearance) of individuality, nationwide as well as world wide. This makes for a very discomforting feeling of smallness or inadequacy in modern humans; a feeling which the mass-production-style of the major organized religions of our times (and even, apparently, in ancient times) aggravate rather than ameliorate. In the early years of the last millenium, the leaders of catholicism demanded adherance to its teachings by everyone. Dissenters, non-believers, skeptics and heretics were, by theistic law, put to death. This was, obviously, a reasonably effective method of ensuring little public dissent toward catholic (and, therefore, national) policy and philosophy. Even though the United States was established in part to alleviate religious opression, overt non-theists are still repressed, sometimes subtly, often publicly, through social ostracism by many in our pointedly judeo-christian "cultural elite".

I've also noticed that organized religion, is (intentionally or not) a racial and gender divider. Keeping in mind that religious teachings usually attempt to influence and direct us as early on in our lives as possible, in other words, when we are children, consider:

Every modern organized religion and denomination typically will determine for its members a racially mandated male to be their perception of "god" or whatever. God, "christ", and on and on and on, is always a man...how does one know? Is gender a matter of semantics? If you ask a woman to believe in "god", she will, even if only for one split second, think in terms of "he" rather than the eventual and, today, seemingly obligatory "she". We have all, male and female alike, been conditioned that way, again, usually as children, by modern religious thought. What would women think about deistic religious teachings if they REALLY began considering the ramifications of it all rather than blindly accepting the propaganda? I suppose that back in the days when all these different religions were being dreamed up, those male-dominated cultures and societies just figured any "supreme being" had to be, as a natural and obvious choice, conceptualized as a male. This declaration, of course, ignored as unworthy of discussion what the women-folk thought.

White (Aryan) "christians" worship a Germanic or Teutonic-looking "god" with blue eyes and pure, white skin with their "Jesus" being pictured as the proto-typical "soap opera" star.

Hispanic "christians" worship a Latino or Indian-appearing deity, especially in their perceptions of "christ".

Jews worship a highly Semitic version of their god; Abraham seems a "christ"-like personification of yahweh.

Black Muslims (Nation of islam) deify, naturally enough, a black man (Elijha Mohammed, et al).

Middle-eastern islamists claim a swarthy, heavily bearded Mohammed to personify "allah".

Eastern religions, for obvious reasons, retain their conceptions of deities with Asiatic features.

Whose idea is right? What would a "supreme being", if there really were any, actually look like? (I know, I know, we've been informed for centuries that "god" is "unknowable"...humor me!) Are we "made in the image" of this deity? If so, then our deficiencies, of which there are many, are the deficiencies of "god". "God" is, therefore, not perfect and is not a "god" worthy of worship.

To a realist such as myself, organized religion and the fantasy of a beatific, white, male, soap-opera-handsome "god" or "christ" is like a cancer. Even a complete excision of the tumor leaves a scar which in my case, after listening to the staid and dogmatic deistic bullshit for even a few years in my youth, represents the 1/1000th of a percentile of my instinct afflicting me with a tiny remainder of doubt (stoked by the perpetual bombardment of religious propaganda which constantly assaults all of us) concerning a divinity and thus preventing me from yet enjoying the liberty and contentment of complete freedom from religion and all it entails.

In reply to those who maintain that the "teachings of Jesus" are the wisest and most uplifting of moral offerings that mankind has ever presented to itself: undoubtedly, the essence of these teachings had been around in some form or another for thousands of years before that mythical P.R. machine known as "Jesus" rumbled into high gear to deliver a shovel-full of recharged "Jewish homilies" upon the Roman Empire. The result of all this "greatest story ever told" has been untold death, destruction, misery and unhappiness at the hands of zealots running amok in the name of "christ"...and the "anti-christ", and buddha, and allah, and "god", and etc....an uncomfortable, even unnerving consideration in this era of weapons of mass destruction.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the demise of humanity were the result of a disagreement over these "wisest and most uplifting" of ideas?

Does the combination of intellect, emotion and conscience in a reasoned, proper and uninterrupted circumstance produce the mysterious and controversial "sixth sense" of legend? Each and every individual on the planet is the result of biological chance, created and molded ("nature and nurture") not in "god's" image but by genetic heritage, upbringing, environment, geographical happenstance, education, experience, intellectual acuity, economic circumstance, and physical and mental health. In these days of biotechnology and genetic engineering, there may eventually be more "nurture" than "nature" involved, but in any case, the basic result is the same; a biological grouping of chemicals and tissue known as a unique human being, not an "image of god". This adds up to the separateness of individuality common to mankind yet so repressed and stunted by the blanket of religious superstition; so subjugated to the alleged "ecstasy" of gods and saints and ancient prophets. Even the inevitable genetically cloned individuals of the future, still the issue of chance, will have their distinct personalities, their unique "life experiences". Since childhood, the tribal, pagan, clannish, often barbaric concepts of organized religion and its myriad deities are inculcated into ones self (even among the most "backward" of peoples) through parables, myths, glorified nursery rhymes and fairy-tales, mystic ritual, encyclicals and edicts. The Inquisition, for instance, was one result of this ritualistic repression of rationality, "spirit" and conscience by an organized religion. This "mistake", among others, is now unavoidably acknowledged by a pope obviously concerned that a loss of control over his "flock" might be prevented through the discovery and recognition of truth.

Apparently, our democracy here in the U.S. has, at last, provided an atmosphere where the less inhibited and more reasonable of us are beginning to shake off the yoke of religious dictatorship. This obviously worries those who owe their financial well-being and "authority" to the continued ignorance of the masses. Enough that I'm afraid "Big Brother" will soon panic and let loose the insanity of religious zealotry in a futile effort at survival, once again causing the historical misery and degeneration which marks any attempt to eradicate truth.*

Christianity (as well as most other of the worlds major organized religions) has, despite its politically correct rhetoric to the contrary, always taken a repressive stand on:

Abortion (free choice is, apparently, as subversive as free thinking; fewer babies, fewer donors to the collection plate)

Homosexuality (as unnatural as it seems, face it, it's part of nature)

Women (the actual downfall of organized religion will be carried out by the "weaker sex")

Reasoned spiritual fulfillment (what do we do with several hundred thousand free-loading preachers and priests, rabbis and mullahs out of work?)

That often useful "sixth sense" (natural instinct overrules generic myth)

Organized religion, you see, seems to find the unimpeded combination of intellect and conscience, logic and emotion to be anathema. Why?

Our willful rediscovery of individuality will someday, hopefully, result in the enlightened rejection of the rites, icons, superstitions and dogma imposed on the development of our "sixth sense". We are a species of individual uniqueness and are not, never were, nor ever will be "servants of the lord". This awareness, latent in every human being on the planet, is difficult to find however. As Charles Darwin long ago propositioned, organisms, including mankind, will, over time, develop survival aids which make it more able to adapt to the conditions in which it finds itself, especially to the extent that it will be able to procreate more effectively (Natural Selection). Conversely, they tend to lose the advantage of other "survival aids" through disuse. Has the "sixth sense" of humanity, at one time necessary to survival in the hostile conditions of primeval earth been, over generations, subsumed by civilization and the need to socialize, or to "worship"? This "sixth sense" once was and could again become, I believe, an extremely effective "bullshit detector". If given free reign, ones "sixth sense" may allow those with the courage and the sense to re-develop and utilize it the capacity to replace the synthetic morality, the dictated ethics, the mysticism of organized religion, of theology; which is why, of course, the major religions of the world wish to discourage it's possibilities in recognizing potential threat to the person, spirit and conscience among us "proletariat".

Of course, this spirit, emotion and conscience, absent the control of our innate morality, can be over-stimulated by an abnormal indulgence in the "lazy man's" spirituality via the mesmerizing and hypnotic, the unbalanced, illogical and occasionally unnatural adherence to religious brainwashing and propaganda. This often leads to the fanaticism and zealotry infamous in its violent and mindless mayhem perpetrated in the name of whatever the chosen divinity. John Brown,** Hong Xiuquan***, the popes of the Crusades, even Hitler were driven to their excesses by either incomprehensible deistic fervor or a paranoid hatred and distrust toward others of differing religions. Undoubtedly such insanity will happen over and over again until all of mankind is either united in one single expression of spiritual manifestation…or simply is no more.

*This passage was obviously written well before the recent attacks on the United States by Islamic zealots. The attacks have, sadly, proven my thoughts here all too prescient, based as they are on historic precedent.

**John Brown seems to be one of the few religious zealots who protested rather than mindlessly attempting to justify an injustice (slavery).

***Hong Xiuquan… failed university student who thought he was "Jesus Christ"; 10-13 million killed in his revolt against Qing Dynasty between 1853-1865/67 in China. Leader of the Taiping rebel movement headquartered in Nanking

Page written by: Eric D. Tallberg

October, 1998