When thinking of micro-cosmos, we have in view tiny lifeless particles having certain characteristic physical features. In macro-cosmos, the only difference is that the tiny particles become very large cosmic bodies. We wonder ourselves if life exists on other planets but any planet strictly speaking is conceived as something without life. Into this inanimate and simple medium, between micro and macro cosmos, life does exist at least on our planet on which we live with all of our faiths and fights. Odd, isn't it? The culprit is our imagination, or more specifically, our lack of imagination. We understand what occurs around us but our knowledge decreases substantially as our thinking moves farther away. In both micro-cosmos as well as macro-cosmos, our mind imagines simple particles whirling unceasingly around each other. Really? Is the world senseless? Unlikely! What would be the sense of a world without sense? We will never be able to provide answers to these questions but this does not prevent us from imagining other cosmogonies. But why? The reason for any cosmogony ever conceived was to make sense of our life and to serve as support of morality. Any religion does offer some moral norms based upon a particular cosmogony. The science, on the other hand, destroys any cosmogony, and implicitly the moral norms that had used that cosmogony as support, offering nothing as a replacement. If you are not a religious person at all, consider the following proposition. As science accepts the infinite as mathematical notion, then we may accept that Earth is a particle in the micro-cosmos of another superior system which, in turn, is a particle in other systems and so on. Perhaps we are somewhere in an infinite flight of stairs. Can Earth be a particle of the liver of an upper being? It seems we must accept that life could exist both in small and large infinite. There is a god for us and we are gods for our some smaller ones. But how could I speak something to those smaller beings from my body what I want they to do. How could I address to them? They do not know Romanian language, not even English. It must be another way, not to make them to understand me, but to oblige them to work properly. If don't, the inflicting punishment will be drastic and then... what, for example, a section of the liver becomes out of the body? A decaying material! Of course, it would be naive to think that God looks like us and he watches our individual existence. Is there a moral? From an individual point of view the answer is NO, but - from a collective one - it is YES. For example to keep Earth alive; otherwise the vital functions of the upper being will surely remove us as a decayed corpuscle! In which way? This would be the topic of the religion. This is not just a cosmogony but it deserves to think on it.
(It looks like such of pantheism. What a trump of a fellow this Spinoza was! He knew nothing about he structure of the atom, but thought better than many contemporaries. As we understand him now, I wonder when we will understand the ancient Greeks, although Hindu tradition is nearer by the pantheism.)
¶. If God made us, he did it for himself. Let's suppose that we, you or I, to make a machinery, let's say a "bio-machine". We do not want that machine to raise prayers to us, or to glorify our name every day and every hour, unless we are just some stupid people. What we want is that machine to work accordingly with our project. God wants the same to us. Prayers are priests' inventions. The question is what God wants us to do? Maybe to preserve the planet entirely! Do not forget that he made the earth firstly, and only afterwards the man.
How could we possibly hope to discover something of the mind of God? How God views our life, and what he thinks? (If God made us like him, he is like us, so he has the same troubles. I would like to know when it is the better time for asking him about my problems, because I do not want to disturb him while in the bathroom. Fortunately, be sure that he is not like us.)
As a beginning is proved - both biblical and archeological - an end must be as well. The idea of an imminent end gives birth to the salvation idea, evidently for those who will be alive then. How to save themselves? With prayers it is unlikely. Anyway, the solution is not to be found in a book written several thousands years ago. But, till then, it would be good for us to keep the planet entirely.
At the beginning, it is the word that was. The Bible says that. Of course, the God's word! "Word" has a deeper meaning here. It says that God had a plan, a project, before starting to make the world. He didn't play making earth, plants, animals and finally some little men, at random. First, he had had a project. All the nature was conceived as a whole. That's why we ought to preserve the nature as it is, with the mankind in it, if possible. This is our first duty. If we have too many "original" eccentric ideas, there is the risk of becoming non-functional inside of the upper-system and, consequently, the system will eliminate us, just because it was conceived as a whole.
Man is in his essence bad. Any object or being in nature is in a permanent interaction with the objects and beings around him. The struggle for existence is indispensable for life, is life itself. Man, as part of nature, cannot make exception. Thanks to the education, he learns how to live decently, as the medium will impose its limits anyway. The intelligence should improve his existence, but it did not happen so far. On the contrary, man used it destructively. In whole, our situation looks like that of pre-historical dinosaurs, which used to dominate the medium, but were the first to disappear. If you do not like my comparison, think to brontosaurs!
As for the education, it is an individual process. The society does not change itself in the same rhythm. As a result, educated people are victims of the less educated ones. And this is the smallest effect. More grave is that we firstly propose to educate man to be good, and then we think that men really are good. It is a non-realist premise to imagine man better than he is. This is why we conceive all kinds of utopias. People should be considered as they are, and conceive a society in according with their characteristic features.
¶. Do we are free? Without the pressure of the atmosphere our body would burst. (Schopenhauer said it.) The absolute liberty is not possible. In society, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said that it is the enemy who borders us, gives form and found us. Let us not say just enemy, but it is clear that our liberty come up against the others' liberty, so that we must not disregard them.
Civilisation recommends norms of living together. Liberty exists inside of norms.
State imposes laws for those who do not understand the utility of the civilisation. Sometimes they think their liberty would be diminished, which could be real if some laws are abusive.
Religion suggests moral norms for all the others. Religious man is not preoccupied by liberty. The notion is strange for him. His single duty is preaching, and has not time for anything else.
¶. I have just read the leaflet from a CD with music of American Indians, where the author insisted on the idea that, in Indian spiritualist faith, man is considered to be part of nature. It is here from his attachment to the nature arises. I am thinking the morale issued from the Christian faith is opposite. In Christianity, people are taught that their existence on the Earth is temporary; the eternity is in the Eden, likely in the Hell. From here the scorn to the earth and everything is on it, the neglecting of the medium. Even in Extreme Oriental faiths, although mankind's existence on the Earth is considered to be temporary too, caring plants and animals is extremely important. Only the Christians are inimical to the medium. This comparison deserves a deeper analyse. Maybe I will do it one day. For the moment, I keep in mind that native-Americans spiritualist faith seems to be better that ours. Their god has less political ambitions.
¶. With or without beard, alike us or, on the contrary, very different, a being or spontaneous nature, God surely exists, and we are his children, in the figurative sense, of course. The question is what he claims from us? Hosannas and glorifying hymns surely not! They are tricks invented by priests. Maybe God only wants us to behave on a normal way, as he made us. Consequently, any exaggeration is opposite to his will.
¶. In time, common people have understood better and better Christian philosophy. It is not true the atheism is generalized, but the profound Christian message is not to be found in most churches, and people see this. Consequently, they do not go to church, but they believe, everyone in his way. Now, it is surprisingly, at least for me, why neo-Protestant preachers insist on those anachronic ideas of Apocalypse and the second coming of Jesus, who will massacre all the people except those few adepts of exactly their church. Probably my wife is right saying that everybody believes in God according with his soul.
¶. In Romania, not even fifty years of communist propaganda changed the faith. On the contrary, this is just more obvious now, when the poverty reached unbearable limits; people thank to God as the only rescuer. We must not forget that Christianity is first the faith of poor people.
¶. Paradise has not representations in our world; we cannot imagine it. As for the hell, Dante imagined it as earthly as possible. I am afraid the modern times exceeded his fantasy.
¶. Now I know where we come from: from love.