THE EMMANUEL CHURCH SERVICE - GODISM, RELIGION AND THE END OF RATIONALITY? THE END.

As I listened to the service, I was reminded of a seminal conversation I had with a then elderly Jewish shop-keeper, several decades ago. This conversation was probably a consequence of my longstanding interest in politics and religion, amongst other things. Prior to having the conversation, I had been, it would subsequently appear, under the misapprehension that all people had their origins in the one or other members of the 12 tribes of Israel. How confounded I was, then, after this man explained to me that all the 12 tribes of Israel were in fact Jews? 

Yes, I was very perplexed; as much as I was when the Bible referred to only 144,000 people being 'saved.' What would happen to the millions of others, I asked myself, including all those people who have never heard about or had 'the privilege' to become Jews, Christians, Muslims, et al? Why should they be condemned to 'hell', for no better purpose than that they did not have the 'opportunity' to practice these 'exclusive religions'?

And here lies a paradox; the paradox which suggests that there is 'only one god', who or which might have different names, depending on ones place of birth and/or language, but that there are many religions. I can see the logic of arguing that all humans, if you are a creationist, must have been created by one god. Unless you are going to argue that, in line with the fractious and competitive disposition of humans, that there are or were different gods. 

Which, for the sake of argument, comprise one who created white people, one who created Chinese people, one who created Asian people, one who created Jewish people, and one who created Arab people, and one who created all the other distinct peoples who are not listed in the aforementioned.  

Now, that kind of apparently absurd theory might be passable for 'creationists', but it would not hold water for the 'evolutionist', and rightly so.

There seems to be no logic in arguing for the existence of, not only the 'one god concept', but also for the 'polytheism or multi-gods concept.'  The argument for the uni-god concept is really an attempt to bring some rationality into the concept or theory of 'god.' If you like, it is an argument which seeks to use the  apparent outcome or result of something, to make sense of its purported cause or beginning.   In ancient times, humans might well have thought that there were discrete kinds of humans or peoples, especially as each probably had their own 'god' or 'gods.' 

However, if we adopt the recent "African origin of modern human theory" (Wikipedia), then, 50,000 to 100, 000 years ago, humans might well have had only one common ancestor. On this basis, the argument for a different god 'creating' 'different peoples' would not stand up. Thus would the 'rationalist' have to argue in favour of their being only one god, if the 'creation story' is to be accepted.

A bit of ergo-sumness. 'I think, therefore I am', which does not carry with it, the uncertainty of, say, 'I think, therefore I must be am or here', which also gives rise to other questions, such as, 'here, where'? Or, 'I am, but who or what am I'? And so forth.

And so we might make the 'rational' assumption that, as we are all humans, with a common evolutionary ancestors, irrespective of our different external physical characteristics and adornments, it follows that, if our ancestor/s were created, then they most probably were created by one god.

But, when we consider the trappings and rituals of the various types of religions, which human have established and developed, we find that, except for the later religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which borrow aspects from each other, religions do tend to be derived from and coalesced around 'the gods of the people who initially invented them. Before being forced onto other people. The religious conquest, you might argue.

I will end this post by reiterating what I have been tending to do pertaining to the matter of god and religious. Which is namely this. That, since religions have become such an essential part of the living of humans, and continue to remain as such, especially in the case of Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, et al, it is something which humans will have to continue to accept. For me, what I continue to find incongruous, is the predication of religions on the premis of a god or gods. 

There is a great deal of deception taking place here, with society, which otherwise acts as if it is guided by rational and logical thought, continue to perpetrate the incongruity of the concept of a rational god on people. In other situations, people who resort to arguing for and worshipping the existence of an imaginary being or deity, would be considered as either being mentally ill or being at risk of becoming so. 

In the case of mainstream religions, it appears that, because of the numbers of believers and worshippers, an event which would otherwise fits the bill of 'witchcraft' and rejected accordingly, has been become 'normalised' and 'legitimised.'

Of course, it would be a great loss if, in losing the centrality of godism in them, and replacing it with humanism, humans and society were also to lose all the good and joyfulness which many or most religions have contributed to their enrichment.