These lines by Tolstoy about why humans need religions gave me food for thought for many days after:
..a rational human being had to and always did establish a relationship to the whole of the infinite and eternal universe, understanding it as a single whole. And this establishment of a human being’s relationship to that whole, of which he feels himself a part and from which he derives guidance for his actions, is that which has been and is called religion.
And that is why religion always has been and cannot stop being a necessity and an inescapable condition for the life of a rational human being and a rational humankind.
Establishing a relationship between oneself and the infinite whole and a framework a person can use to guide their actions - that is the raison d'etre of any and all religions per Tolstoy. It makes sense that the flavor an existing religion takes (or a new one comes to exist) is determined by the social norms and the cultural mores of a people. The same guiding and reasoning framework (to oversimply) will not work consistently across all geographies and societies.
So local adaptations are required. The flavors start to clash - one person's system is placed under real or imagined existential threat by another's. If indeed religion is what keeps humans for turning into animals, it could as essential as air and water to our survival and there will never be a time when religion is no longer relevant. If anything in the absence of somewhat centralized (and well functioning) organization, the primal need will be addressed by things that will step in for religion and lead to worse consequences. With more and more people turning away from religion, if Tolstoy is right, humankind will become less human.
Comments