A Brief Search for the Origins of God and Religion

Where does god and religion come from exactly? Pope Benedict XVI speaking at World Youth Day in Sydney 2008 reiterated the official Vatican version of Christianity’s origins. He stated, “Almost two thousand years ago, the Apostles, gathered in the upper room together with Mary and some faithful women, were tilted with the Holy Spirit… at that extraordinary moment, which gave birth to the Church” (SMH:17.708). In contrast Hitchens dryly states, the whole concept was “produced by the close cousins of chimpanzees” (153). According to Onfray we invent gods that are the exact opposite of our mortal powerless and perpetually suffering selves, “haunted by our desire for completeness” (98). Dawkins says the need for religion (and therefore a god) is fundamentally irrational and this could very well be “a by-product of a particular built-in irrationality in the brain” (184). Or it could be mimetic? Some ideas, like god and religion, survive over time because they are “compatible with other memes that are already numerous in the meme pool” which are simply part of an elaborate “memeplex” (199). The contemporary atheist takes a more considered approach to the question of god and seeks to find other possibilities for the persistence of god or the need for god in contemporary culture.

On the origins of the three great monotheist texts, Onfray says, “Their pages no more descend from heaven than those of Persian fables or Icelandic sagas (77). Rewritten many times over two millennia by many anonymous authors who omitted information, included new information and reinterpreted old information to the point now where there is much confusion over what the texts mean and what purpose they profess to serve. Hitchens bluntly states “monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion, of an illusion extending all the way back to a few non-events” (280). The fact is, according to Dawkins, “we have almost all moved on and in a big way, since biblical times” (265) in the sciences, art, history, philosophy and our general knowledge has far surpassed anything that could be imagined in over two thousand years ago. “What does it mean to contextualize a verse that calls for a massacre of Jews?” for example, asks Onfray rhetorically (173). Is it a simple historical convenience, Hitchens suggests, that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome for purely political reasons and so “of the thousands of possible desert religions there were” at the time, “one branch happened to take root and grow” (185). Undoubtedly monotheism still has a significant influence on political power structures in the contemporary world. Stripped down to its fundamentals, Hitchens believes “the argument with faith begins and ends with Socrates” (258) as there is no proof either way. Indicative of how the tables have turned Dawkins proposes, “The burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers” (53).

It is futile to even suggest Schiller should or could have created Karl and Franz as well-rounded characters in a contemporary atheist mould and I don’t intend to propose that. Nevertheless these characters do present a dynamic and potent argument against both religion and god that, in many respects, aligns itself with contemporary atheist discourse. It is perhaps for this very reason The Robbers not only shocked the plays original audience but also why it continues to resonate into the twenty-first century. So exactly where are we in terms of religion versus atheism debate? Onfray believes “we are now living in a new transition phase, heading toward a third era, the post-Christian era” (38) where he hopes, Philosophy will take a leading role in shaping its future direction. Dawkins asserts that at present, “Humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding” (374). Onfray concludes, “At this hour when the final battle—already lost—looms for the defense of the Enlightenment’s values against magical propositions, we must fight for a post-Christian secularism…” (219)

But according to Pope Benedict XVI this “secularist vision… presents itself as neutral, impartial and inclusive of everyone… in reality, like every ideology, secularism imposes a world-view” where “good begins to wane” (SMH: 17.7.08). This does not seem to align with Onfray’s vision. He suggests we need to “construct a moral system” without the restrictions of theology and science using “philosophy, reason, utility, pragmatism, individual and social hedonism” (58).

Conclusion & bibliography

There remains much more to debate in relation to the question of god and religion of which I am unable to cover in this thesis. Contemporary atheist writers like Dawkins, Onfray and Hitchens explore the questions surrounding god and religion passionately, presenting a compelling case in favour of atheism. Drawing on over two thousand years of accumulated knowledge, scientific evidence, philosophical discussion, history and the arts, they seek to reshape the negative perception of atheism and atheists and address the persistent questions surrounding the existence of god which have been around since the advent of god itself. They also suggest the idea that humanity is in a profound, unstoppable, transitional phase and assert the proposition of a world without religion is nigh. Is Christopher Hitchens right when he says “the final ripping of the whole disguise is overdue”? (151)

Friedrich Schiller’s in his 1783 play, The Robbers, sought to reinforce religious doctrines, but it arguably presents a strong case in favour of atheism. The characters Karl and Franz are in great inner turmoil and seek a reality outside the constraints of religious dogma. The valid questions they raise about god shocked the plays original audience. Unable to even contemplate an alternative outcome, the characters end up in tragic circumstances. Many of the arguments aggressively presented by Schiller in The Robbers have surprising contemporary significance portraying a world in which church and state collude in a corrupt partnership surrounded by a world in crisis. With what is arguably an unconvincing dénouement, reading The Robbers from a contemporary atheist perspective the question arises whether atheism is the answer when god is the question?

If we acknowledge firstly that during the Enlightenment key atheist texts were produced with very similar if not sometimes identical points of view as contemporary atheists, we can accept that at least theoretically the option of atheism was available. Secondly if we accept, as Schiller himself acknowledges, that those during his time who “pass for genius” in the arts, sciences and philosophy, derided and scrutinized god with great vigour then once again it is perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that theoretically atheism could have been and probably (even if clandestinely) was, an option if not an answer to some, when god became the question. At the dawn of the, increasingly secular, twenty-first century it is true that atheism, as proposed by writers like Dawkins, Onfray and Hitchens, is a certainly a viable alternative, indeed the answer, for many, who question god.

Bibliography

Beckett, Samuel. Collected Shorter Plays. London, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1984

Brandt, George W. Banditry Unleash’d; or How The Robbers Reached the Stage, New Theatre Quarterly (2006), 22: 19-29 Cambridge University Press

Bronner, Stephen Eric, The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg. New Jersey, Humanities Press Int. Inc., 1993

Buchanan, Matt, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” The Sydney Morning Herald 25th May 2007

Byrne, Jennifer, The First Tuesday Book Club ABC TV Dec 2006. (Transcript) Accessed ;
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/firsttuesday/s1779022.htm

Carlyle, Thomas, The Life of Friedrich Schiller: Comprehending an Examination of his Works. Leipzig, Bernard Tauchnitz, 1869

Casimir, Jon, “The God Delusion”, The Sydney Morning Herald 4 Nov. 2006

Davis, Robin G and Butler, Lance St. J. (eds). Make Sense who May: Essays on Samuel Beckett’s later works. Birmingham, Colin Smythe Ltd, 1988

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Random House, 2006

Dobrez, L.A.C., The Existential and its Exits: Literary and Philosophical Perspectives on the Works of Beckett, Ionesco, Genet and Pinter. London, St Martins Press, 1986

Frame, Dr Tom “Irrational Prejudice of Religion” Canberra Times 21st April 2007

Gerould, Daniel. Theatre Theory/Theatre. New York: Applause, 2000 pp 248-261

Greer, Germaine, The First Tuesday Book Club ABC TV Dec 2006. (Transcript) Accessed ;
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/firsttuesday/s1779022.htm

Hardy, Merieke, The First Tuesday Book Club ABC TV Dec 2006. (Transcript) Accessed ;
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/firsttuesday/s1779022.htm

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Allen and Unwin, 2007

Leidner, Alan C., (ed) Sturm und Drang. New York: Continuum Publishing Co., 1992

Martinson, Steven D. (ed), A Companion to the Works of Friedrich Schiller. New York: Camden House, 2005. pp 89-114 , 271-294

McGeachy, Matt. “Robbers Wraps Successful Run” The Varsity, 11th February 2008

McGirr, Michael The Book Show with Romana Koval ABC Radio National 5th July 2007. (Transcript) Accessed
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2007/1970422.htm

Moss, P.J. “The God Delusion” The Australian 26th Oct 2006

Neubauer, John. The Freedom of the Machine: On Mechanism, Materialism, and the Young Schiller. Eighteenth Century Studies, Vol 15, No.3 (Spring, 1982) pp 275-290

Onfray, Michel. The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2007

Pope Benedict XVI, “Popes Speech” (transcript) Sydney Morning Herald, 17th July 2008

Porterfield, Allen Wilson. Rhetorical Contrasts in Schiller’s Dramas. Modern Language Notes, Vol 30, No.5 (May 1915), pp129-136

Reed, T. J. Schiller : Past Masters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991

Ribner, Irving (ed). The Atheist Tragedy or Honest Man’s Revenge, Tourneur, Cyril, London, Metheun, 1964

Roehr, Sabine. Freedom and Autonomy in Schiller. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 119-134

Romany, Frank and Lindsey, Robert, Christopher Marlowe: The Complete Plays. London, Penguin, 2003

Sharpe, Lesley. Friedrich Schiller: Drama, Thoughts and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991

Siemon, James R. (ed). The Jew of Malta, Marlowe, Christopher, London, A & C Black Ltd, 1994

Simons, John D., The Myth of Progress in Schiller and Dostoyevsky. Comparative Literature, Vol 24, No.4 (Autumn, 1972) pp 328-337

Sommerstein, Alan H. (Trans.) The Clouds. Aristophanes, London, Penguin Classics, 1973

Warner, Kerstin P., Thomas Otway. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982

Windsor, Gerard “The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam” Sydney Morning Herald 20th April 2007

Zwartz, Barney “The God Delusion” The Age 24th Nov. 2006

Zwartz, Barney “The Atheist Manifesto” The Age 25th May 2007

©dbvalentine2008