In our last blog, we mentioned a concern about theocracy in relation to abortion.
Since then, many states have passed laws restricting abortions. Religious beliefs seem to have been a major factor in their decisions to pass these laws. This raises our concern about an improper theocracy.
These lawmakers are either misguided, operating in ignorance, or something else. And they are not alone in this world.
Before going further into theocracy we must look at some basics. We define and discuss some terms. We look at issues with an open-minded but analytical approach.
Theology
Many definitions or “understandings” of theology exist. The term originated from the Greek theos– for God and logos for word, then to -ology, for science.
We’ve provided versions of some we’ve found:
– the science concerning truth, God, and his relation to the universe
– a science dealing with the existence and attributes of God
– the science of God and religion
– a set of beliefs about God
– the study of the nature of God and religious truth
– the study of God and God’s relation to the world
– the study of religious belief
– the study of the nature of God and religious belief
– the philosophy of religious speculation
In addition to these more formalized definitions, people have their own personal definitions known only to themselves.
There are problems with these types of definitions. So what should theology be?
1) Most of these definitions and effort today deal with a Christian God. Some deal with Jewish and Islamic involvement. But the subject could refer to any belief system.
2) Such research or study generally assumes that one and only one universal “Supernatural Entity” exists. We have a problem with the word supernatural, so we’ll call this the Entity for now. (In reality, there is no such thing as supernatural. Everything is natural. Some things are beyond what we understand, just less common, or not accepted.) People may call this Entity God, Allah, Source, Spirit, or by some other name for their own reasons. Essentially all are talking about a single Entity which they believe has different qualities and/or a more preferable (or less undesirable) term as they use it.
3) If such an Entity exists, whatever its characteristics are, our current scientific methods cannot adequately study the Entity’s existence and attributes. Due to the so-called supernatural nature of such an Entity, any effort would merely be at most an observational level.
While observation is one valid scientific technique, it only allows us to record and classify things or events. It can’t reliably provide a basic understanding of why or how such an Entity exists or occurs — i.e., finding cause and effect.
Observations are limited to the senses of the beholder(s), their instrumentation (if any), and their individual interpretation. This leaves the explanation for something wide open for debate. One cannot rule out known or even unknown alternative explanations.
To understand something from a scientific point of view requires proper experimentation. Satisfactory experiments require control of all the significant conditions (variables) which produce some thing or event and the ability to reproduce (scientists use the term replicate) those things and events. Current scientists have neither in this area of study.
4) What is a religion?
A system of thought founded by one or more individuals which involves or demands a belief in and worship of some Entity, one or more persons, an object, or a system.
A religion is generally based on some combination of documents, ideas, or observations as well as the human interpretation of those and the political or other desires of those who are or wish to be in a position of power or leadership.
People can read the same books, witness the same event, hear or read a report of an event, or have some other source and yet come to different conclusions. It depends on their background, pre-established beliefs, and mental state at the time they are exposed to the source.
People forming or leading a religion have developed many different sets of beliefs about this Entity through history, some of which still exist. With major differences between them, all of these systems can’t be correct. Starting off with incomplete or flawed data and using speculation, creativity, imagination, or rationalization, one should not realistically expect to reach valid universal conclusions.
Because of how and when they were developed, the most likely situation is that none of these systems is correct. (Religion is not alone in this. Some “scientific” beliefs are false as well.)
Our understanding of the universe has expanded enough to know that many of these older beliefs, such as those of multiple gods derived from individuals or objects like the sun, moon, and others are false. We have grown from the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. We now understand that our star, the Sun, is roughly at the center of our solar system. Planets exist around other stars. Other lifeforms exist on some of those planets.
For now, we simplify the definition of theology to:
The study of what governs the universe and our relationship to it
With this, we include the origin (if there was one — some call it creation), the rules and laws of operation, the termination (if there will be one), the contents, and the characteristics of the universe. This definition calls for the study without a presupposition calling for a specific Entity. It eliminates biases as to what people think God or whatever term they use is.
Now we accept certain things as real and true. In mathematical or geometric terms, these would be axioms or postulates.
1 – What we call the universe exists. We know that because we are here and are able to perceive at least parts of it. The universe may be relatively simple or it may be very complex and “strange.”
2 – The universe is lawful. Things happen in reliable ways. For example, the law of gravity keeps us grounded, unless we invoke other laws which enable us to overcome its effect. We know of some, but not all, of those laws and characteristics. Those give us certain functions and capabilities.
3 – There is only one basic set of laws in the universe dealing with how the universe operates. Our perception of these laws depends on how one uses them and how we perceive this set of laws and whether we label them good or bad/evil. For a physical example, a knife can be used typically as a tool to do processing of some object, or it can be used as a tool to kill someone.
4 – There is a unity which produces a consistency in the universe. If there were not, chaos would result from uncontrolled or random events, and we do not see that.
5 – What we call consciousness exists and we are a part of it.
6 – Something exists that is capable of interacting with humans and other lifeforms, with matter and energy, and with non-material objects (what we now may call spiritual).
How do we find out more?
In our present-day situation, we could begin trying to understand by looking at the field of cosmology. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which tries to study the origin, status, and any possible end of the universe. Due to the long time periods involved, acquiring accurate knowledge is very difficult. For example, planets, stars, and other objects have lifetimes of billions of years — much longer than human lifetimes.
Cosmology relies on observation and thus has the limited scientific capabilities noted earlier.
But cosmologists generally only consider the more material aspects of the universe — matter and space, along with the various forms of energy and forces and the laws they believe govern them. They don’t study non-material things like consciousness and spirituality. There are other laws dealing with spiritual or other aspects they don’t know about or study professionally, which leaves this approach wanting for our purposes.
A look at most religions shows that they may touch on some of these other aspects, but they don’t inspire any analytical confidence that they have valid insights.
With this background discussion behind us, Let’s go back to our original point.
Theocracy
Definitions of the term theocracy are more consistent.
We attempt an all-inclusive version:
An organized form of government which rules based on the belief that some authoritative Supernatural Entity(ies) dictates the laws under which a group of people must live and which provides certain individuals to enforce expected behaviors by those laws
We consider an atheistic government as a special case of theocracy, even though it doesn’t meet this definition. It specifically refutes the belief in any such Entity. Maybe we should call that type an anti-theocracy?
Different variations of theocracy are possible.
Before continuing, though, let’s consider another point of view.
Do we actually need a theocracy? Should we have one at all? Couldn’t we just have a good government and society? Let’s call this a “desirable government-society relationship.”
What kind of government should a society want and have?
1 – one which provides for the security, safety, and health of its people
2 – one which provides certain freedoms, human rights, and responsibilities for its people
3 – one which provides free will for its people to follow whatever lawful paths they may select in life according to their interests and abilities
4 – one which helps its people achieve their best in whatever life path they choose
5 – one which promotes individual and societal development toward a greater understanding of self and the universe
6 – one which promotes and encourages people to have respect for and help each other regardless of differences — i.e. to love one another
The problem with such a human-formed society is that it will not last very long. This type of society will ultimately lead to subjugation of its people and self destruction. Some people will consider themselves smarter, richer, more competent, or better in other ways than the general public. They’ll want dominion over the masses either because the people are nothing to them or because they know what’s best for people better than people know for themselves. The beneficial government will eventually deteriorate with these people in control.
Humanity as a whole is not sufficiently developed morally and in other ways to maintain such a society by itself.
We apparently require some other force or influence outside of and beyond ourselves to maintain such a society. Could this be fulfilled by the Entity?
In Axiom #6, we postulated that something beyond us is capable of interacting with lifeforms — communicating and influencing. Could this something be the Entity?
There is evidence that Something has reportedly influenced certain human events throughout the written history of our era. Some of these events occurred many centuries and even millennia ago. Some are more recent. Some may be occasionally referred to as miracles because we can’t explain how they occurred or understand the mechanisms involved.
This discussion raises several more questions.
What is this Something or Entity?
We don’t have a clear answer to that question. Do we really have any answer to that question?
Would this Entity simply set up creation to see what happens — like a cosmic experiment — and not intervene in what followed? Or would this Entity care about outcomes for Its creation and intervene occasionally if It disapproves of what is happening?
People have tried to define this Entity. But isn’t that an impossible task given the situation? A microorganism couldn’t begin to define a human.
People claim they communicate directly with this Entity, but:
– How do we know if the true Entity or a valid representative is really communicating with the people who claim such?
– How can we know whether people reporting such communication are not merely dreaming, hallucinating, or imagining and creating everything in their own mind?
– How can we ever know if what such people say is actually truth from such an Entity? Some people might simply be scammers or want power or dominance over others and not have any real relationship to the Entity.
If the reported theology is flawed, how can a theocracy be legitimate in the Entity’s view?
What should an ideal theocracy provide?
If there is such an Entity, we should want and expect an ideal theocracy to be based on a system which included love as its primary law.
We should not want one which forced or strongly pressured its subjects to repeatedly or frequently bow down in subjugation and fear to worship their supposed Entity. We should not want one which supported and encouraged violence. And we should not want one which imposed severe discrimination against an individual or group only for physical reasons such as color or gender, for having and expressing different thoughts, or for taking legal actions.
Several theocracies have been created over time. None have provided the desirable government-society relationship mentioned above.
A sustainable theocracy might be where the six desirable criteria mentioned above exist, plus another point:
7 – one where all people would proudly, willingly, gratefully, and happily praise and celebrate the Entity’s existence and guidance.
Let’s examine the three major “western” religions. Given that, suppose we now refer to the Entity as God.
All three of these religions claim to believe in a single God, but differ in what they claim God to be and in what God does and wants.
When we look at the supposed human founders of these three religions, we see they led by example.
From the Bible text, Abraham would be considered the founder of Judaism — based on God telling him to find the land for his people, to circumcise all males (including himself), and providing him with some covenants. Abraham brought a people together to form the Jewish religion. His followers provided expanded beliefs and some codes of conduct.
Jesus was reportedly sent specifically by God and had regular communication with Him. He would be considered the founder of the Christian religion due to what he showed by his teachings and various acts such as healing. His disciples and followers carried on his teachings as written in the New Testament and elsewhere.
Muhammad formed the Islamic religion based on information reportedly given to him by the angel Gabriel and God. He relayed it to his advisors and followers, who later documented his teachings in the Koran (Qur’an). After forming Islam, Muhammad waged wars of conquest to subjugate or kill other people, apparently at least in part to spread his religious beliefs.
Each of these individuals, based on their reported communication directly with God, had major impacts on world religious history. They and their followers are responsible for the formation of some of the largest religions today.
As time passed, influential people have had different ideas and deviated from or selected only parts of the original teachings.
But let’s go back to what the founders represented by their teachings and actions. How would their concepts compare to our desirable theocracy? Can that help us determine if any of these are a viable option?
In making that comparison between these founder’s systems, only one is based on a founder who specifically directed us to love one another.
Jesus demonstrated for us that there is more to our being than just a material body. There is more to and beyond this human life. He had an optimism for humanity and pointed out that we can do greater things than he did. Jesus’ psychokinetic effects (such as healings, controlling the weather, levitation, and leaving behind images on the shroud) and ascending into a cloud after the resurrection present a unique story indicating that he was an intervention from outside, beyond ourselves. Jesus was not an existing human supposedly selected for communication by God. He was reportedly created specifically for his mission.
We have a clear choice and a simple decision to make. We can approach peace and our desirable government-society relationship by following the teachings and examples of Jesus, expressing love, and doing what he said we would. Or we can follow others and continue in a world of oppression and violence.
Now this is only part of the story
There is a lot more behind this than we present here.