Most religions believe in some sort of afterlife or continuation of a "soul" after death. Apocalyptic religions are those that believe in some type of catastrophic "end times" event that culminates in a supernatural being coming in to right the wrongs and injustices in the world. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Christians carried on this tradition, but made Jesus the apocalyptic savior that comes back and saves them while destroying the wicked.
I now see the folly in this way of thinking. This goes along with an earlier post of mine regarding god (or godly thinking) being "lazy." I think any religion that believes and advocates that a supernatural being is going to come in and rescue us, and solve all our problems (including death), is both harmful and counterproductive. Adherents to such beliefs will feel less motivation to solve the myriad of problems and difficulties facing humanity. After all, if Jesus is going to come back any day now, what's the point? He'll institute a world governance that will address all problems, or maybe use his magic to cure them all directly. Back in my believing days, whenever people preached about the dangers of man-made climate change, I largely dismissed them, thinking "It's okay, God isn't going to let things get that bad before Jesus comes back." I really did think like that. I'm confident that many believers feel similarly.
Believers in apocalyptic end times may even contribute, directly or indirectly, to the aggravation of the world's problems. There are millions of Christians who would see silver lining in the detonation of a nuclear bomb by some rogue state or terrorist. Openly they would acknowledge it as a tragedy, but privately, and perhaps in religious circles, they would whisper about the imminence of Jesus' second coming. It happens after every catastrophic world event. Many people thought the end was around the corner after the events of September 11, 2001--I know I did. Even if apocalyptic believers don't directly contribute to the worsening of world problems, their very attitudes may indirectly serve to enable and propagate them. If billions of people around the world believe that the last apocalyptic battle will be fought in Jerusalem, should we be surprised that there is so much conflict there? Establishing Israel as an independent state after WWII was, in part, a result of this apocalyptic Christian belief. Thus, we have Christians striving to self-fulfill calamitous "prophecy," and people suffer and die because of it.
The problem of death is easily the biggest one that religion seeks to solve. Religion assures us that this life is not all there is, that we will continue to exist even after all our organs fail. Naturally, I can see why this message is attractive. Most of us cherish life and do not want it to end. This belief brings us peace and the assurance that we will see our loved ones that have predeceased us. During the many thousands of years of human civilization, this belief has been useful in inspiring people to do many things they might not otherwise do. But in this day and age, with the technologies we have, and the extent to which we have already prolonged human life, I think it's time for this belief to be discarded.
The reality is that if anyone is going to save humanity from its problems (again, including death), it's humans. We will be our own saviors, if at all. In the beginning, mankind created god in its own image; and in the end, mankind will transcend itself and become "god," provided it doesn't destroy itself in the process. Humanity faces many problems and existential threats. We are capable of destroying ourselves and virtually all life on the planet in an alarmingly short amount of time. Our development of biotechnology and nanotechnology enables us to create and innovate even more ways of self-destruction. There is also the possibility (however remote) that we get hit by a large asteroid and experience another mass-extinction event, like the dinosaurs. If we do not reverse or dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, we risk destroying our environment. We have to face these problems head on. We created most of these problems, and we alone will be responsible for fixing and/or avoiding them.
This perspective is, admittedly, frightening at first. But that is often the case with reality. After the initial fright and discomfort subsides, I find this perspective very empowering. Such a paradigm shift would constitute what psychologists call an internalization of one's locus of control (typically seen as a good thing). I look around me at all the amazing things we are innovating and creating. I am convinced that it is within our ability to solve climate change, eliminate hunger and poverty, dramatically prolong human life (perhaps even to the point of achieving some form of immortality), and achieve world peace. None of the solutions are necessarily simple, but they are within our reach, and it is up to us--and only us--to realize them. This means that we have to turn our focus away from the imaginary savior in the skies and inward, on ourselves. We have to become responsible and accountable. No one is going to bail us out. No one will save us but ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment