A Last Word

Vis-à-vis the above-mentioned modern interpretation of religion, I quote below what Alexis Carrel has to say of himself:

He (the writer) realizes that his description of this aspect of mental activity will please neither men of science nor men of religion. Scientists will consider such an attempt as puerile or insane; ecclesiastics, as improper and aborted, because mystical phenomena belong only in an indirect way to the domain of science.

The phraseology Carrel uses to express his concept of religion is frequently redolent of the religious, but the similarity ends there, for in actual fact, there is no real difference between Carrel’s view and a purely atheistic one.

1. The first thing we have to consider is that according to this interpretation, religion emerges as something unreal. It implies that the concepts of God, life after death and revelation have no basis in reality, but are miracles wrought by our own powers of imagination. But if we are to judge by the force and intensity with which religion has made its way into the minds of the people, it is unthinkable that it is purely a thing of the imagination. The distinguished contemporary historian, Arnold Toynbee writes:

If we set out to make a survey of the religions that have been practised at different times and places by the numerous human societies and communities of whom we have some knowledge, our first impression will be one of a bewilderingly infinite variety. Yet, on consideration and analysis, this apparent variety resolves itself into variation on Man’s worship or quest of no more than three objects or objectives: namely, Nature; Man himself; and an Absolute Reality that is not either Nature or Man but is in them and at the same time beyond them. (p.16)

That is, history shows that from time immemorial man has been pursuing the ultimate reality. Is it possible that a totally imaginary notion can pervade the whole of human history? Can any other idea be pointed out which has made the same impact, which has, in spite of being ‘unreal’, influenced human psychology in such a thorough-going manner?

2. If we were to abide by this interpretation, it would be but natural if religion were the name of not just one creed but had a thousand manifestations. If we regarded religion as the name of a particular form of intellectual activity, then every individual would discover it to the degree that his own innate capabilities, his temperament, his environment, and so on, made it possible for him to do so. But if we take religion to be the word of God, then we must concede that it has a definite form, quite independent of subjective consideration, on the basis of which the thoughts, words and deeds of all mankind are judged in terms of right and wrong. Thus, the difference in the conceptualization of religion makes for a fundamental difference in its reality. On this aspect of the question, Toynbee has this to say:

Different people’s convictions will differ, because Absolute Reality is a mystery of which no more than a fraction has ever yet been penetrated by—or been revealed to—any human mind. ‘The heart of so great a mystery cannot ever be reached, by following one road only’. However strong and confident may be my conviction that my own approach to the mystery is a right one, I ought to be aware that my field of spiritual vision is so narrow that I cannot know that there is no virtue in other approaches. In theistic terms this is to say that I cannot know that other people’s visions may not also be revelations from God —and these perhaps fuller and more illuminating revelations than the one that I believe that I myself have received from Him.

Moreover, the fact that I and my neighbour are following different roads is something that divides us much less than we are drawn together by the other fact that, in following different roads, we are both trying to approach the same mystery. All human beings who are seeking to approach the mystery in order to direct their lives in accordance with the nature and spirit of Absolute Reality or, in theistic terms, with the will of God—all these fellow seekers are engaged in an identical quest. They should recognize that they are spiritually brethren and should feel towards one another, and treat one another as such. Toleration does not become perfect until it has been transfigured into love.

Thus, countless versions of religion appear to be in existence. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has discovered 22 different concepts of God extant in different societies and it discusses the concept of God under 22 separate headings.

3. It follows that such an interpretation deprives the terms ‘prophethood’ and ‘termination of prophethood’ of their normal significance. Toynbee writes:

The historian’s point of view is not incompatible with the belief that God has revealed Himself to Man for the purpose of helping Man to gain spiritual salvation that would be unattainable by Man’s unaided efforts; but the historian will be suspicious, a priori, of any presentation of this thesis that goes on to assert that a unique and final revelation has been given by God to my people in my time on my satellite of my sun in my galaxy. In this self-centered application of the thesis that God reveals Himself to His creatures, the historian will espy the Devil’s cloven hoof. For there is no logically necessary connection between the belief that God reveals Himself to His creatures and the belief that God has chosen out, to be the recipient of His revelation, one creature that happens to be precisely I myself, and that this revelation, given exclusively to me, is a unique and a final one. (p. 132) 

Here the error lies in the particular concept of revelation, which the writer finds acceptable. Had he not fallen into this erroneous way of thinking it would have become clear to him that revelation and special revelation are so closely and logically connected that they are quite inseparable. To modern thinkers, revelation is something like a fine picture flashing through an artist’s mind, or the burst of inspiration, which enables a poet to compose a beautiful poem. To them, God is not a conscious being who chooses someone to execute His will in order to serve a purpose; rather God is conceived of as an external, abstract reality which encompasses our universe—a reality which is reflected upon us. To some, this is not the true situation either, although our own subconscious speaks in terms of inspiration and revelation. Clearly, the religious point of view is quite different from this. Hence the failure of the modernists to understand the religious concept of revelation.

4. According to this modern interpretation, religion is reduced to a worldly need, whereas religion, in actual fact, is a need of the life hereafter. That is, from the purely religious point of view, the real task of religion is to show man the path of salvation in the next life. But according to modernists, the aim of religion is to provide a proper basis for social organization in this world. But rather than this being the main purpose of religion, it is only an incidental benefit accruing from the application of religious principles. Dogma cannot just be reduced to any given thought arrangement on which there could be built the unity of purpose and practice desirable amongst the believers of a particular religion.

5. The prevalent form of Judaism, which no longer consists of the original teachings of the prophet Moses, there having been many additions and alterations, has also played its part in giving birth to this modem concept.

Toynbee writes:

It is, in fact, difficult to imagine that a God whose mind and will govern the whole course of the Universe would compromise the conduct of His government by acting on a caprice. It would seem highly improbable that he would pick out just me and my tribe to be His Prophet and His ‘Chosen People’. Any such idea of mine would seem less likely to be the truth than to be an hallucination conjured up by my innate self-centredness.

The concept of the ‘Chosen People’ (possibly the concept of Judaism which the writer has in mind) normally signifies that a group is chosen for no better reason than its relation to a particular person, nation or race. But in terms of religious absolutes, this is an absurdity: the truth is that an individual or group following divine revelation will be considered ‘chosen’ in the eyes of God irrespective of family, race or nationality. The former interpretation of religion, from the religious point of view, is little better than a denial of religion. A religion which does not base itself upon the concept of rewards and punishments justly meted out, and reduces itself simply to a personal undertaking with no relation to other human beings, recognizing as its fountainhead not a living and conscious God, but man’s own mind and consciousness, (or even the unconscious) can only be described as fallacious and a pure matter of expediency. It is unacceptable to mankind, for adherence to such creed is tantamount to saying, “There is no God but man,” rather than “There is no god but God.”