7. The origin of religion.
Having examined the relationship of religion to morality, philosophy,
science and art, we see that religion represents something much more universal
than all the above mentioned manifestations of man’s spirit, not only
separately, but also in combination, since religion embraces them in complete
unity. Without religion, all the yearning of man’s soul would not have solid support
and would place man’s spirit into hopeless contradictions.
A yearning for
Truth, without faith that there is an absolute Truth (a perception of which is
possible through communion of man’s mind with the divine Intellect), would be
transformed into “a wild goose chase,” a fruitless chase after the
unattainable, or would end with an even more fruitless and cynical skepticism.
Poetry and other forms of art, with their impulses toward the ideal, would be
transformed into a fruitless play of fantasies if religion did not convince people
that a higher, ideal world actually exists.
Morality without
religion would not contribute any consolation to the life of people, since, in
a living communion with God, man receives higher, blissful means for moral
growth and genuine ethical satisfaction.
This makes it
clear that religion not only cannot be replaced by philosophy, science, art or
morality alone, but, on the contrary, without religion, all these inclinations
would be deprived of all foundation. This basis is the aspiration to a living
communion with God (the essence of religion). But where do we get this
aspiration? This question bring us to the problem of
the origin of religion.
The question of
the origin of religion can be the object of historical, psychological or
logical analysis. Historical analysis brings us, on the one hand, to the
so-called historical proof of the truth of the existence of God by means of
indicating the universality of religion, and, on the other hand, to the study
of the rise of various forms of religious cults and well-known historical
religions. Psychological analysis leads investigators to vague contradictory
hypotheses, a survey of which is not at all obligatory for Apologetics.
A logical
analysis, however, leads us to a clear assurance that the question of the
origin of religion has no practical meaning, for, in an appraisal of religion,
it is of no importance whatsoever in what manner religion occurred. It is
completely unimportant whether it was because of fear, or foolishness, or
amusement, or mischief, or gain, or any other motive that religious considerations
arose; the only matter of importance is whether the ideas under consideration
are correct or incorrect.
The truth of an
assertion does not depend on its origin. Just because an insane or criminal
person said that 2x2=4, 2x2=4 does not cease to be the truth. Likewise, the
truth or falsity of the statement “God exists,” depends not one bit on the fact
that it might be made from fear or from the hope of material gain. In other
words, the question of how religion originated has no relation whatsoever to
the question of whether one or another religious conviction is true or false.
As to the matter
of faith in the Divine Revelation (for example, of the Christian religion), you
can contrast against it only the belief that there is no revelation. Logic
itself presents no obstacles to having faith in God and His Revelation. As was
shown above, that is exactly why the majority of the world’s greatest
philosophers, scholars, poets and other highly gifted people do believe in God
and the Revelation.* Faith is not contradicted by the scientific data of psychology,
anthropology, comparative philosophy, or any of the other sciences, since
scientific conclusions have only a hypothetical character.
Nothing
interferes with a Christian’s belief that the origin of religion is explained,
on the one hand, by an innate impulse of man’s soul to strive to its highest
image, God, and, on the other hand, by the influence of God Himself acting upon
the soul of man.
____________________________
*For example: Tabrum:
The Religious Beliefs of Contemporary
Scholars.