The Inevitable Dossier
15 October, 2019
Server time: 14:37
 
The Dossier
Download it now!
Download statistics
Page hit statistics
Old statistics
Online reading
Sympathize
Corner Banner
Support / Donate
The Inevitable 'I'
Google Ads


Creeper
MediaCreeper
 
10. Appendix (10.1.8-)
Written by Messiah   
Thursday, 06 July 2006

10.1.8    Religion

Inevitability Theory does not rule out the existence of God in the sense of an all powerful being who orders things in the universe. What it does say is that even He or She or It is moving in an inevitable and predictable pattern like everyone and everything else, however complicated the pattern might be.

There is little difference between religion and political dogma. The popular ones are merely social formulae for how people ‘should’ behave in relation to others and result in a lifetime of posturing. A man alone on a desert island has no practical need for the social obligations forming their main content but might continue to adhere to them against the day he is rescued. Religions probably evolved in a Darwinian sense to preserve the species. Without them we kill each other and with them we kill other people. Inevitability Theory describes a real system in which morality is only a cog and not independent of the system. Advocates of religious beliefs behave like the madman believing he is Napoleon - if you believe the one major fallacy then everything depending on it is acceptable as the truth. The madman could equally say Inevitability Theory is a concept in which, if you accept the major fallacy of Inevitability, everything else fits. The difference is the only evidence he can offer for being Napoleon is to wear a big hat and say Monsieur. The only evidence the moralist or cleric can offer for religion is wear a big hat, quote specious arguments and walk around in church demanding blind belief, whereas to prove Inevitability Theory you simply let a brick fall or plot the course of one star in the heavens. The main religions reject things like ghosts and other supernatural beliefs, while demanding belief in the biggest ghost and supernatural story of all - God, Free Will, Life after Death etc. - to the exclusion of all others. The evidence is that the progress of all phenomena is more correctly (whatever that means) described by Inevitability Theory. However, the movements of electrons in their inevitable paths in the brains of those imagining they are Napoleon, or that morality is something supernatural, are as real as in the brain of an astronomer saying the earth rotates round the sun. Neither is correct nor incorrect, they both just ‘are’ but one may be representing the actual situation, the other may not. Really, there is no actual situation and no represent, when you think about it but that’s another story.

The religion into which you are born is beyond your control yet often proves a matter of life or death, being one of the biggest influences on the rest of your life and limiting the decisions you can take. Religious authorities are usually happy if you kill other people in the name of their religion, especially if you believe you are doing ‘right’. You end up with a situation which is mixed-up between the situations you unavoidably find yourself in and those for which your conscience is allegedly responsible. In contrast, Inevitability Theory provides an elegant and homogeneous explanation for all types of situation including the concept of religion itself.

Consider the Theory in relation to criminal insanity. Legal minds are supposed to take the view that if a man breaks society’s rules he is either criminal and sane or he is criminally insane. The difference between sanity and insanity is defined by whether he understood the difference, supernaturally, between the arbitrary concepts of right and wrong as laid down by the society he was in and  whether he knew, supernaturally, what he was doing was wrong. A man who is raving mad probably does not comprehend these things. Another criminal might, however, have a keen analytical mind yet be found insane because his comprehension of right and wrong differs from that accepted by his particular society - the greatest crime of all. As usual, the moralist ends up with a woolly, illogical standpoint, mixing supernature with the inevitable situations the man has found himself in. The Theory simply maintains that everything from the man’s existence to his presence in and the judgement of the trial court was part of an inevitable train of events. Whether what would be regarded as an innocent man is found guilty, or vice versa, is only another roll of the dice of chance and the way in which the dice  will fall was decided long before the earth started cooling down.

How is the man placed who sacrifices his goat to the Glory of God? If Inevitability Theory is correct, his action is the inevitable consequence of factual inputs into his brain and the equally factual circumstances in which he finds himself, namely being alive, believing in God (in an electronic sense), having a goat and a knife with which to kill it. If Inevitability Theory is incorrect, the man is a mixed-up kid, his morality is non-factual but his life, unfortunate goat and the knife are factual. The predictable material world never creates such an illogical mixture. He is in an even more confusing situation if his God is allergic to goats, because he is in no position to know this. Inevitability Theory provides a more balanced and homogeneous concept and you get to keep your goat without a guilty conscience, because what was going to happen was inevitable.

The moralist submits animals to vivisection, if it is going to help humans. To ‘do good’ and ‘help others’ (almost always applied only up to a point) are the passwords for selfish survival in society. What is special about human life - there is a lot of it about - except for woolly moral concepts and the fact that you are one? Some argue that to survive long term on earth and conquer space, 50% of humans should be disposed of, only the young intelligencia of certain races remaining. Inevitability Theory does not take sides in such matters - what will happen will be and is inevitable, whether it is perpetuation of moralising or a holocaust. The decisions will be taken either in awareness of Inevitability or not and, when in awareness, will be different from what they otherwise would have been, not that they could have been any different anyway.

Consider the slaughter carried out and horror endured by troops in the First World War, ordinary people, mostly of the same basic religion and nearly all believing they were in the ‘right’. If the great majority of them had known they were operating in a system where their next act was as inevitable as the sun’s rising, and had not made their decisions from fear or abstract dogma, their reactions to what they were doing and suffering would have been very different, although exactly what they would have done is hard to say. It would not have been a matter of the sheep-like judgement, "There is nothing we can do about it", but rather an instinctive basic reaction to do something better, whatever that means, or at least different, in awareness of its inevitability. Of course, their actual behaviour was inevitable and the religious dogma and political pressures were inevitable, as is this recollection of it. There is no way history can be different (unless an infinite number of universes exists, which is quite possible), no way they could have done anything other than they did. This illogicality is used only to illustrate how increasing knowledge and acceptance of Inevitability Theory is likely to affect future human behaviour. Note that probabilities are in fact Inevitabilities; the illogicality of expressing them in reference to the past is itself a useful illustration of Inevitability.

Illustrations of the inadequacy of moral and religious logic are endless. Take the example of a pilot ordered to bomb an enemy city, who does it with a clear conscience. If he is then ordered knowingly to bomb a hospital containing 100 sick children he might well refuse to do so even though he knew, statistically, he had killed 500 children the day before. It is much more logical to accept that the situations he found himself in and his reactions are part of an inevitable series of events than to create a moralising rigmarole that never leads to a satisfactory conclusion. Even if you live by eating grass it could be argued it is morally wrong, because someone else might one day starve because he will not have the opportunity to munch that particular tuft.

Man is now at the stage where he can genetically modify and clone himself - raising many questions ethics and religion are unable to answer. Can two identical clones have different moralities? When man has created Homo Superior, can he logically claim it has morality and free will? Inevitability Theory does at least fit the facts, even if by its nature it gives no answers.

Try to imagine a logically acceptable system different from that proposed by Inevitability Theory. Such must either be random or be what may be called religious. If random, it would be proceeding in an inevitable pattern and there would be a probability of this ultimately leading to apparent order within the system, such as we have now. The ‘religious’ system would be either partly random and partly governed by a non-inevitable ‘religious’ factor, or be totally governed by a non-inevitable factor. You could not logically have an element of inevitability in either of the two sorts of religious system, although that is what is accepted today. In a religious system there is logically no room for any inevitability. Another system could be one where each man has free will within his own universe and his is the only free will in it. All are possibilities but such systems conform less with the evidence arising from predictability than simple old Inevitability Theory does.  

Inevitability Theory is not a doctrine, it is merely, inevitably, describing the facts as they are. In comparison with religion, the Theory stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the beliefs of, for example, the devout Catholic or Moslem who trusts entirely in God, church and priest. Do not confuse the Theory with the concept of ‘The Will of Allah’. The Moslem believes in free will, religious obligations and in the existence of an Allah who interferes occasionally. By the way, there is nothing in Inevitability Theory that says a God, either interfering occasionally or managing everything in detail, does not exist. The Theory simply maintains that, if there is a ‘higher’ being, he is part of the inevitably proceeding total inevitability. The Theory admits only total inevitability, for both God and man, although you may (inevitably) believe in Inevitability Theory and a religion at the same time. It does not say the Catholic and Moslem are wrong. ‘Wrong’ is not a concept of the Theory. Their views are factual movements of electrons in their brains and as real and inevitable as the sun and moon but not necessarily representing the facts as they are, if in fact there are any facts to represent. A brain might say 2+2=5. The statement is as factual as 2+2=4 but may not represent the actual situation; there may be no actual situation to represent, only the fact of existence. The belief of children in fairies might be rejected by adults but, even if the fairies are not actually dancing in the garden, their presence as a pattern of electrons in the brains of the children is a real and inevitable reality. A difficult point, but nothing in the concepts of God, belief and imagination contradicts Inevitability Theory.

 


 
Google Translator
Inevitable Ads
Advertisement
 
 
Visitors
Today 's Top 20
 100 % United States
Amazon Ads

 
       
© 2019 The Inevitable Dossier