For this blog I found it only fair to myself to listen to words whispered in my ears for many years now. These words have pried open my mind to countless possibilities that await me in the form of the future, but the words have begun an endless debate in my mind, which I accept and dread. This blog will analyze views by Mikhail Bakunin and Freidreich Neitzsche (La Gaya Scienza), followed by my own interpretation of the material.
The reason I chose this material is because of the possibility they may be right, mixed with the possibility they have no idea what they are talking about; yet, the allure is too addictive. So without delay: Why does humanity need God?
Bakunin is straightforward in God and State of his opinion of God and His place in humanity. Bakunin gives Jehovah characteristics such as “most jealous, most vain, most ferocious, most unjust, most bloodthirsty, most despotic, and most hostile.” (P.2) “Our first ancestors, our Adams and our Eve’s, we’re not gorillas with two precious faculties–the power to think and the desire to rebel.” (P1-2)
To further this line of thinking Bakunin then desires to know why did God create man, if Christian dogma is true? This is where his version of the myth of original sin and human humans being the loyal slaves of God is introduced. Bakunin has Satan being the great emancipator of the human race by “stamping the seal of Liberty and humanity upon our brows.” (P2) Yet, with God’s all fore sightedness, a divine faculty, God allowed the transgression to happen and then smote humanity for doing what was “forbidden.”
Bakunin claims humanity does not need God for multiple reasons. It can begin and be seen in the “manner religions debase and corrupt the people.” (P14). Religions are cruel by destroying human reason, the “principal instrument of human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the essential condition for their slavery.” (P14) The religious system is based on the idea of sacrifice, but no man can truly answer if there is a heaven of not. Bakunin then asks, why not make this life as close to heaven as possible, then, and concludes that the answer to God and everything associated with God is, “if God existed, only in one way could He serve humanity, by ceasing to exist.” (P15)
Fredrich Nietzsche wrote a parable entitled The Madman where the madman ascertains that humanity has killed God. The madman cries out in a marketplace that he seeks God, when no one answers he states, “Because we have killed him, you and I.” This is followed by the multiple questions:
How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What are we doing when we unchained this Earth from its Sun? Which way is it moving now? Are we moving? Away from all Suns? Are we not plunging constantly? And backward, sideways, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying through an infinite nothing?Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morn? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? (Chap. 125)
Now, as powerful as these questions and this verse may be, the answers to these questions is not what is necessarily important. It is the fact that humanity has achieved the ability to question by ceasing to believe in a supra-sensible world as the true norm of our moral conduct.
“I have come too early, or too late, and God is dead and we have killed Him.” the madman continues. This hints that God is not there and not coming; but humanity is claimed to have done this by accepting science as a possibility for achieving God-hood. Without a healthy medium.
What are the options one can take to live a moral life with no higher standard to pit yourself against or to use as a support structure? Neitzsche states that the acceptance of this can lead to despair, suicide, Nihilism (values do not exist but are invented), and Satanism (belief in the love of oneself/the individual). That you are a Star or a God, and that you can do as you want.
Another stance is whether there is a new justification and creativity that humanity can progress and achieve some “thing” greater the the individual could achieve alone. That by giving up on God is the way humanity can progress, but together and not as an individual.
It is difficult to determine if people need religion to guide them, some claim they do. Those that do not need a dogma, man, thing, or external idea to tell them what to believe or guide their moral compass could be in a more balanced or narcissistic state than others who are told how to believe. But that is not for me to conclude.
It is also difficult to understand that humanity has an emptiness in its existence. An emptiness so great that through our own imagination conjoured an imaginary friend to fill this emptiness, to quell the fears of the unknown, and creator of a moral compass and ethical reasoning.
Why couldn’t it be the other way around?
So is the answer to give up on everything, all knowledge of your being and go back to being like an animal, is that what the world needs to find peace, for a huge step back? This cannot happen, because as stated by Bakunin and Neitzsche, humanity progresses.
So, with God being dead the strongest and most evil will give the most to humanity by reawakening the sense of self-compassion that society put asleep. By pitting opinion against opinion, does humanity continue the curse of Babylon? Even more, continues the social structure of vertical organization.
Vertical organization is solely about profit and the individual gain. As long as profit is the end-game for every strategy, the system will develop methods of control to ensure profits. Fear has been the main control method in human history, followed by ignorance and doubt.
This is nonsense because progression has shown that it does not have to be along historical guidelines. The Renaissance and Enlightenment periods where progressions that embraced another social system.
The use of a system that inherently incorporates stereotypes and biases, and uses violence, cohesion, and greed to progress its agenda, is a system that should be used anymore as a dominant social system, i.e. Vertical organization.
So I say with courage, De Omnbius Dubitandum, “All is to be doubted.”
As long as organizational methods are set up primarily along vertical methods, it matters not what is said, because the end-action is always profit.