The importance of chronology in understanding existence (part 1)

Reflection VIII

Introduction

For some of us, looking at things as they are, turns into a harsh reality because we don't want to accept what is, so on top of reality, we add an idealistic approach to be able to face and understand things that take place in our lives and around us by, most of the time, attributing the purpose of these events to a supernatural power. Examples of this include giving a romantic reason for why we have lost or gained something, or why we have succeeded or failed at something. For others, facing reality as it is, without a romantic way of giving meaning to things, is a preference and the way to go through their journey of life. Or, they can't look at things in another way, maybe.

In this post, I would like to make a distinction between living in the nakedness of reality with things as they are and idealising reality by adding a superstitious layer to it that isn't there.

This post is not an attack on religious or spiritual beliefs, but rather an opportunity to think about something most of us are not aware we are doing, which is not wrong, but worth reflecting on. Most of the explanations done in the name of religious people are my old way of thinking and 'reasoning' as an ex-Muslim for 25 years. For more information about this blog and the mind behind the screen, make sure to check out my introduction to this blog.

Existence as it is versus personal meaning

The understanding of existence as it is, answers mostly the how and why questions that we have, which is closely related to what science answers with many branches within its fields. These levels are not strictly separable because they all intertwine with each other to a great degree. On the other hand, the meaning of life is a strictly personal quest that every individual goes through throughout their life, and that mostly answers why questions in an idealistic way that can not be proven, but can only be speculated upon personally. Thus, I would like to clarify the distinction I'm making between reality as it is and the way some of us give meaning to things, which in the first place is not there but a mere reflection of how we'd want to interpret events.

One example to clarify this distinction would be the following: two university students failed their last year at the university, but the next year, while retaking the same classes, both met and fell in love with their future partner. The religious/spiritual student would interpret his failure as something that had to take place to be able to meet his partner, with whom he would want to share a future. For him, his failure was a blessing disguised as failure. On the other hand, the realist student would interpret his failure simply as a failure. At the same time, he would see it as the cause of having found his future partner. For him, there are no idealistic layers in his perception and experience of reality that intertwine with the past and the future to bring forward a mystical result for what took place in the past. The result of meeting the love of his life took place because he happened to meet a group of new students, and his future partner happened to be one of them, with whom he had chemistry throughout the continuity of time. In this case, the religious/superstitious student adds a layer of an idealistic view on reality to make sense of his failure, instead of accepting that his failure was the result of moments that followed each other and that led him to fail, whether the cause was laziness, mental health problems, burnout or anything personal. On the other side, the realist student doesn't add any romantic approach to his failure, but he makes sense of meeting the love of his life as a logical and chronological result of moments, out of which failure played a major role.

As humans, throughout history, we have been adding non-existent layers to our reality to avoid facing the meaninglessness of things, to avoid sour truths ot ro relieve ourselves from chaotic events that do not have a purpose at their core. By giving a personal meaning to things in our own way, we are creating a distance between the naked and meaningless reality and are generating some sort of order in a space that has no order at all.

The importance of chronology: evolution

Questioning why we are here is something we started to ask ourselves after we had been able to satisfy our basic survival needs as humans and had time to question our existence. The fact is, we are here because we are the result of a human egg meeting a human sperm, which is the result of a years-long process that evolved from certain primates, which evolved from certain mammals, which evolved from certain reptiles, which evolved from certain amphibians, which evolved from certain fish, which evolved from a long journey of cells that were present in the water and at a certain point in time, received ultraviolet lights from the Sun that helped to form amino acids, which are the basis of proteins, which in turn is the main component for body parts of living beings (very roughly explained). Evolution can explain many things, such as why humans have nails and how their nails are formed, why and how human eyes see the way they do, or why most humans have back pain and how they ended up evolving with back pain.

The latter can briefly explained as follows: after a long period in which our ancestors walked and ran with their feet and hands, where they automatically had their back either horizontal or a bit humped like a bow, one of the reasons why humans have back pain is the decision that our ancestors took during their evolution into humans. Our ancestors decided to walk standing up with a vertical back, thus with their feet only. This change, which was crucial to differentiate ourselves from our ancestors, made our backbones bend into a pressed S-shaped curve inside our bodies to fit inside our skin. The pressure for the S-shape is also partly caused by gravity after the body stands up. While, realistically, these explanations satisfy our why and how questions on this matter, for a religious person, it might not be so satisfactory.

Accepting the clarification of our existence in terms of evolution by scientists will lead them to have other questions they want to avoid asking, for obvious reasons: if that is the case, this means evolution is real (of course), but why did God choose evolution to bring His creations into existence? Why would He allow a vast majority of His creations to exist and fail to survive, and then let them go extinct? Wouldn't you consider such a God mean and sadistic? One that has countless trials and errors with tremendous suffering. What is the reason for it? This way of asking a metaphysical why to understand the reason why animals and living beings would come into existence and then go extinct, is where idealisation begins. That beginning is ultimately also the start of biased answers.

The unbiased and factual answer is the natural processes that take place in nature. This answer is satisfactory enough for those who are in touch with reality, but not enough for those who are purposefully looking for a metaphysical and idealised answer to avoid questioning God. And for these people, no amount of reality will be enough as an answer, because idealising has become their comfortable way of living. Stepping into the chaos of our purpose-free nature can be too terrifying. But if someone were able to answer that metaphysical why-question, it would be no one else than a religious scholar who made use of the absence of a God to idealise reality in His name. This way, a creatively prepared answer is given to fit the narrative and satisfy the ears of those looking for romanticised answers. "God knows best" will be one of the greatest lines religious communities will ever use to shut down any curious mind.

Why do people see God as evil if He were to allow evolution?

I will try to explain why most critics of religion, including me, turn God into something evil when they try to reason whether God could be behind evolution. Why do we not accept the idea that God might have chosen evolution? Why do religious communities not like the idea of evolution? Aren't they kind of avoiding reality by avoiding evolution? Diamond Tema, who is a YouTuber, gives an example in one of his videos on why evolution and God don't really go hand in hand. The example goes as follows: if you go to a restaurant and want to have decent food that is prepared with decent ingredients and cooked with the right parameters, and this place keeps bringing you uncooked dishes, food with rotten ingredients or just unclean and dirty food with viruses.

1. Would you consider this cook as someone who tests his clients to see whether they will keep believing in his ability that he will one day bring decent food to the table? Would you consider such a cook one who actually cooks very good, but he just doesn't show it? If the answer lies in the trust of the clients who have to keep making themselves believe this cook is a brilliant cook, but he can not prove it, you're wrong. For me, the only thing this cook should do is either keep repeating and learn to cook or choose another passion. But one thing is clear: this cook is bad and doesn't deserve to be called a cook. No hesitation.

2. Would you accept the fact that this cook is just a terrible cook, unable to choose and clean the ingredients and cook them in the right parameters, and that he was using his clients' physical and emotional reaction to update his food for the next clients? Is this how a cook works? We don't need to philosophise that much to conclude that a lot of things are going wrong here. One thing we are certainly doing with this approach of questioning different possibilities to avoid calling this cook a terrible one, is that we are trying to find many justifications for his terrible work.

A God who keeps bringing a new form of life after the previous ones failed because of His poorly presented circumstances and survival chances, such as letting volcanoes erupt that killed His creations who evolved to live on the ground by burning them and that caused acid rain in the air for those who can fly and stay higher up on the landscape, is not a God worthy of his characteristics such Almighty, or All-powerful or Omnipotent. Or, a God that lets the seas get poisoned during an earlier period on this Earth by allowing the sudden rise of phytoplankton, which causes oxygen levels to crash down completely, and causes a lot of species of fish to die and go extinct, is worthy to be pointed out as a God who failed a lot.

Do these examples make you think about why non-religious people can not bring God and evolution together? Do they also make you think why believing in evolution, even a little bit, scares religious communities, but mostly their preachers, a lot? Accepting a scientific, thus a realistic enough answer, will lead people to question their God and come to thought processes like these. These thought processes are the reason why it is always better for a religious person to silence and suppress certain thoughts they want to question after perceiving things in nature, or learning things in books or documentaries. This is why, as discussed in the beginning, adding a romantic layer of thought to reality is always more comfortable to stay within the limits of religion. I understand that it can be comforting for a lot of people, as I was one for 25 years. But after comparing my old perception with what I tend to understand now, my opinion is that religion anaesthetises the brain, its perception and its urge to understand things as they are.

Thank you for reading.

Continue with part 2 -->

On evolution (part 1)

On religion (part 2)

On daily life and the Universe (part 3)

---

Enjoyed this post?

If my words have ever made you pause, reflect, or feel understood, and you'd like to support my work, you can do so on Buy Me a Coffee or Paypal.me. Your support helps keep the ideas flowing. If you enjoyed this post, feel free to share it with someone who might find it meaningful, and don't forget to subscribe to my blog to stay updated on future posts.