Saturday, January 27, 2007

Monotheism is the Height of Human Evolution -

The evolutionary argument is that development occurs from a simple state to a more complex state. Not only that, but the inherent implication in the evolutionary argument is that when and if a species survives, its survival is due to its development of one or another beneficial characteristic. The point of this post is not to talk about whether evolution occurred or not, although the scientific record matches quite well with the Torah's, but rather to show how the peak of evolution is exemplified with monotheism.

A quick summary: G-d creates existence, the universe, Earth, life on Earth, and then Man. With Man He creates the ability to perceive Him. After Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, they no longer understand things to be "true" or "false" but rather "right" and "wrong," -- value judgments, and subjectivity becomes the prime directive of humanity's paradigm. This leads to humanity's creation and invention of all types of ideologies, which first manifested themselves as variant forms of polytheism, i.e., subjective forms of the Man-G-d relationship. Hundreds of years passed after the abatement of the flood before Abraham was successfully able to "re-piece" G-d's Existence together for the world. Abraham's true understanding of G-d, which culminated in a revelation, ended an era of unchallenged polytheism; it marked the end of a repeating cyclical process and the beginning of a generally ascending cycle. Therefore, once Man was really Man, which the Torah defines as a being with a soul (us), he ceased to go through physical evolutions and began to go through mental, intellectual, moral, and spiritual evolutions. Monotheism was the evolutionary peak of mental, intellectual, moral, and spiritual evolution - there was none higher and all were lower. As is, the "class GPA" of the world would rise due to this merited revelation; it would bring up the consciousness of the rest humanity.

Post-monotheism; Atheism

Can we not say that atheism is the logical conclusion of monotheism? If the process of one replacing many was a revelation of truth, can we not say that the process of none replacing one is a further development of truth? No, we cannot. The reason being is that atheism does not afford humanity something more than monotheism. Monotheism rejected the polytheisms of the day in favor of a theistic understanding that a unified reality, with the One G-d, was the only true one; this was synonymous with absolute morality. The polytheists also had somewhat developed systems of values, ethics, and morals, but they waiver in relation to their instable and changing gods. G-d is Stable and the system of values, ethics, and morality instructed by Him is unchanging. Atheism's system of values, ethics, and morals is non-existent, as is their god. The subjective idea of atheism is a world void of implicit and inherent truths and morals; rather, in that world, one must extract truth and morality from the surrounding culture, a compass incapable of such a task. Culture has no interest in truth, and therefore cannot define falsehood, and so convenience and inconvenience replace these items respectively. It is not a violation of any inherent truth of human value to murder people, rather it should not be done because it is invconvenient to live in a society where people are free to end the lives of others. A society so morally irresolute must resort to replacing "falsehood" with the word "incovenient." There are several people in society who are prepared to tolerate the inconvenience of killing people if that's all it really is. As society becomes more silent, the murderers (rapists, cheaters, corrupters, etc...) become more emboldened. As the void becomes larger, the behaviors that potentially fill it become more variant. What we see is, through atheism, a return to a polytheistic-like world. The only difference is that the murderers murder to please themselves, not the gods.

There is an even more striking similarity; in an atheistic world, the obsession with the gods is still current- it seems that the void of morality, ethics, and values has not filled the void of the human need for the spiritual, and so many, if not all, types of spirituality are in demand. For example: wicca, the simplistic and superficial revival of ancient polytheistic religions, mystical trinkets such as tarot cards, shopping aisle astrology, and pseudo-psychological dream books, and of course new age spirituality.

The difference however is that the polytheists actually believed in these things and to a degree developed and organized them; today's "pop polytheism" is entirely external and superficial, not able to touch on the core of the way polytheists actually viewed the world 3,000 years ago and more. As a result, godless ideologies, religions actually, have developed, many of them humanitarian and social in essence. Valiant and noble causes, such as saving the environment, eradicating war, toppling injustice, and bringing and end to sexual oppression, start where religion ends. The people involved in these activities are fully engaged and embracing of the ideology of whatever group they have joined to the point where it ignites the spirituality within them and they become full of motivation and elation; the result is a strange and diluted form of worship. The imprint of religion is apparent even in these in that a few people, usually leaders, are seen as patriarchs or matriarchs of the movement and the rest of the people are disciples. The cause becomes universal in scope and the person is ready to dedicate the whole of his being to it. The cause or the objective goal of grandeur itself becomes the god, the object of devotion. However, no such god really exists, no command other than some loosely-composed internal drive to make something in the world better or perhaps to leave behind a vestige of immorality, completely fueled by self-initiation, and devotion fails as quickly as the whim flails.

But atheism facilitates the emergence of real evil. At any moment that the void is so large that anything can fit inside, with so many unchallenged acts of immorality, that any given act of "super destruction" can occur, and the previously immoral relativists, now suddenly awake to the possibility that evil exists, challenge it. However, one cannot develop an internal and composite perspective on morality overnight, and those who challenge it too are the products of years, if not decades or generations, of loosened moral fiber. Therefore, their judgment has become skewed by years of exposure to the irresoluteness of their culture and they, like most people, even those opposite to them, have lost the right to be the champions or torch-bearers of any ethical or moral mantle. Further, why should any maniac heed the moral urgings of the populace when they previously consumed immorality like voracious wolves? Will they now be hypocritical? If they believe in nothing, then they have not the right, but the ability, to say nothing. In the end, only the monotheists have room to speak and only they have the power to resist anything, for it was they who warned against evil when the stakes were still low. It is better to listen to the war drums before they become soaked in blood.