𝐙𝐔 𝐋𝐄𝐇 𝐑𝐔𝐈𝐇𝐇𝐋𝐎: 𝐓𝐇𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐔 𝐍𝐔𝐍 𝐀 𝐍𝐆𝐇𝐀𝐖𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐀𝐍

                                                                 ATHEISM BIHCHIANNA 5

                         Sakhua Lo Chhuahna Bul Chungchâng (The Problem of Religious Origins)

            Chung Khuanu hriatna chu mihringa awm sa anga ngaih theih a ni a, modernity lo thlen hma zawng chuan thil awm dan pangngai a ni mai tih kan hria a. Sakhua leh Pathian a inkaihhnawih tlat avangin sakhua chu Pathian nena mihring inkâr vawng nungtu a ni deuh ber a. Mihringin a rilru a hman tam deuh hnuah Pathian sawi tel lova sakhua hrilhfiah a lo tum ta \hin a ni.

            Kan sawi tak David Hume tho hi heti kawngah chuang che na hmasa a ni a. Kum 1757 khan The Natural History of Religion ziakin Pathian mamawhna rilru hi chu nat leh sat a\anga min chhanchhuaktu tur duhna rilru beidawng a\anga lo chhuak niin a sawi daih tawh a ni, “Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men’s dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkeys in human shape, than the serious, positive, dogmatical asservations of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational,”[1] tiin a sawi bem mai a ni.

            A thusawiah chiang viau mah se Hume-a hi chuan sakhua deusawh zawngin a \awng vak lo va, a \henah phei chuan ‘Intelligent Author’ awm anga a sawina pawh a awm hial.[2] Sakhaw mi ho    hian a tisual pangngai ve maiah a ngai a. Karl Marx (1818-1883) erawh chuan Pathian leh Sakhua chu a rawn sawisel ta bawng bawng mai thung. Sakhua chu khawtlanga mi \ha ho hmanrua, capitalist economic system chhawm nungtu, mi retheite inhnemna tiin, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people,”[3] tih thu lar tak chu a lo sawi chhuak a ni. Marx-a hi Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)-an a hneh hle a ni awm e. Feuerbach hian sakhua chu dah hniamin Pathian mihringten ze \ha leh duhawm an ngaihsân – finna, hmangaihna, beiseina leh lainatna te - keng khawmtu an suangtuah chawp mai mai niin a lo sawi tawh a. Feuerbach hian mihringte an \hatna leh zahawmna chu Pathianin lak sak vekah a ngai a, \ha a ti lo hle a ni.[4] Karl Marx hian Feuerbach-an sakhua a hmuh chhiatna kha chhawmin, a kokia chuangin ‘economic status quo’ vawn nunna hmanrua mai angin a zirtir a ni.

            Kum zabi 20-na chuan Pathian kaih hnawih lova sakhaw hmuh dan pawimawh tak pahnih a rawn her chhuahpui a. A pakhatna chu French Sociologist Emile Durkheim-a ‘sociological theory of religion’ a tih society chakna hmachhuana, “the gods whom people worship are imaginary beings unconsciously fabricated by society as instruments whereby society exercises control over the thoughts and behavior of the individual,” tia sawi maina a ni. Durkheim-a chuan mihringten anmahni aia thiltithei zawk hmaa ding an nih an inhria a, chu thiltithei zawk chu hmuh theih loh pathian ni lovin ‘society’ a ni, tiin a sawi \hin.[5] He theory hi pawm harsatna tak a awm ve tho mai. Society kan tih hian khawvel pum a huap ngai loh avangin sakhaw mi takin khawvel pum huapa thlirna a neih (universal reach of the religiously informed conscience) hi a sawi fiah zo lo a, mahni society kal pel a mimalin thil hmuh fiah a neih ang chi (prophetic vision) hi he theory hian a sawifiah zo lo a ni.

            Psychoanalysis hmu chhuaktu Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)-an Pathian leh sakhua chungchâng a sawi dân hi sawi tel a ni ve ziah \hin a. Rinna chu mihringte ‘mitvaihna’, ‘kan duhthusâm hlui ber, chak ber leh min nawr nasa bertu kan hlenna(fulfill) a ni’ tiin ‘sakhua chu thil hlauhawm min nek rengtu- lirnghing, tuilian, thlipui, ruahpui, hri leh thihna ang chite laka kan inhnemna hmanrua’ kan ngaih thutak tak êm êm niin a sawi \hin a. Chuvangin sakhua chu, “universal obsessional neurosis,”[6] a ti mai a ni. Mihringte hriatna pung zelah kan la kal san tur thil niin a ngai. Freud-a theory hi lar viau mah se suangtuahna ramah a innghat lian hle a ni tih a hriat a. A hnungzuitute tam tak pawhin a thil sawi dân tam tak (Entirnân, Oedipus Complex, ‘primal horde’ hypothesis, etc.,) hi an hnawl tawh a ni.[7]

            Tunlaia mite ngaihven hlawh tak mai chu Evolutionary Theory of Religion hi a ni a. Evolution kan tih mai hi biology mai piah lam hmun tinah lutin zirna kawng zawng zawng a luh chhuak titih tawh a ni awm e. Sociobiology ruamah chuan rannung leh ramsa te khawsak dan leh mihringte khawsak dan inanna te an chhui vak vak a, mihring nun dan phungte chu hrilhfiah an tum a. A sakhaw nun thlengin hrilhfiah an tum ta a ni.

            Evolutionary theory chuan mihringte inthlah pun zel leh dam khawchhuahna chungchângah sakhua hian pawimawhna riau neiin an hre tawh a. E.O. Wilson-an 1978 lam daih tawh khan mihringin kan rilrua sakhua kan neih reng, nghehzia hi a lo sawi fo tawh a. He sakhaw rilru hian khawtlang nun leh mimal nunah kawng tam takin a \ha zawngin hna a lo thawk a. Ani hi theist ni mah suh sela, evolution kawngah ‘sakhaw rilru’ hi mamawhna vanga mihring rilrua lo intuh, pawimawh tak, paih mai mai theih tawh loh niin a hria a ni. “For many the urge to believe in transcendental existence and immortality is overpowering. Transcendentalism, especially when reinforced by religious faith, is psychically full and rich; it feels somehow right…the human mind evolved to believe in the gods; it did not evolve to believe in biology,”[8] a lo ti hial a. Wilson-a chuan sakhaw lam thil duh tlatna chu mihring ‘gene’-a lo awm ta tlatah a ngai a, chumi zulzui chuan Geneticist Gene Homer-an ‘God gene’ hmu fuhin a lo insawi ve bawk. Amaherawhchu, Pathian chungchâng hi chuti maia awlsama luhchhuah theih a ni lo tih chu anni ho vek hian an hre chiang a ni.

            New Atheist zinga mi Richard Dawkins leh Daniel Dennett chuan he harsatna hi hriain mihring sakhaw rilru chu a hrang a hraia ‘genes’-a awm ni lovin, thil dangin hrin laklawh (by-product of something else) niin an sawi thung. Dawkins-a chuan mihring taksa chu a thlahtute ‘genes’ a chhawm ang zulzuia insiam zel a nih ang hian mihring culture-ah sakhaw lam thil kan mamawhna hril zeltu, inhlanchhawn ‘memes’ kan tih chu awmin a sawi.[9] Hei hi ‘virus of the mind’ a ti bawk a. Chu ‘memes’ naupang rilru thianghlimah nu leh paten an tuh a, an lo inhlanchhawng ta zel a ni, a ti a. Chuvangin, ‘Pathian’ kan tih hi thil ‘hriat sual’, lo awm laklawh ve mai niin a sawi. Pathian chu naupang rilru no ‘by-product’ mai maiah an ngai a nih chu.

            He meme hi thil ‘scientific’ ni lovin, suangtuahna thil a ni tih kan hriat chian a \ha awm e. New Atheists te zir chiangtu pakhat David Aikman chuan, “No scientist has ever found a way to observe one or measure it, much less reproduce its likeness in a laboratory setting. It is an alluring theory of cultural change, but its existence has never been proved,”[10] a ti. Dawkins pawhin he thu hi a pawm a ni ang, “…we don’t know what memes are made of, or where they reside. …Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosomes, memes presumably exist in brains  and have even less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene,”[11] a ti ve tho a ni.

            Oxford theologian Alister McGrath chuan na takin, “Dawkins talking about memes is like believers talking about God – an invisible, unverifiable postulate, which helps explain some things about experience, but ultimately lies beyond empirical investigation,”[12] tiin a sawi bo tum Pathian chungchâng nen an ‘epismetic value’ a inan tho zia a sawi. God-meme hi a awm a nih chuan atheist-meme a awm ve tho lovang maw? Dawkins-a innghahna ber pawh hi a chiang tawk lo hle zawng a ni.

            Hei chauh hi Dawkins-a harsatna a ni lo va. Philosopher Kerry Walters chuan, “If we presume that religion arose from a biologically selected predisposition to obey authority, this begs the question of how the religious authority being obeyed arose in the first place,”[13] tiin thil sawifiah ngai tak mai a zawt a. He problem hi hriain Daniel Dennett-an, “At the root of human belief in gods lies an instinct on a hair trigger: the disposition to attribute agency—beliefs and desires and other mental states—to anything complicated that moves.The false alarms generated by our overactive disposition to look for agents wherever the action is are the irritants around which the pearls of religion grow,”[14]  tiin mihringin hlauthawng reng renga thil hoteah pawh a phul luai \hinna chu hmuh theih piah lam thil rinna lo chhuahna niin a sawi.

            Heng naturalistic theory te hian sawifiah zawh loh thil pawimawh tak tak an nei ve thluah mai a. A pum huapin khaikhawm tawh mai ila a \ha ang e.

1.      Pathian leh sakhua an kai kawp nasa deuh mah mah a ni. Sawi kawp lo hleih theih loh an nih laiin, mimalin Pathian kan hriatna leh chumi chu kan nunpuina leh sakhua, pawn lam nuna kan tih ho dial dialna hi inhnaih hle mah se danglam tih hi heti lama mithiam tam tak ngaihdan a ni vet ho.

2.      Naturalistic theory te hi dik vek mah se, a tawpkhawkah chuan, Pathian a awm lo tih proof a ni chuang lo tlat. Ringtuin Pathian a rin chhante chu dik lo vek pawh ni se, chu chuan Atheism a dik tih a hril chuang lo a. Mi hausain a nupuiin a hmangaih chhan chu a sum ngah vang emaw a ti a, mahse a lo hre sual der mai lo niin. A chhan nia a hriat kha a dik lo hle a, mahse a nupuiin a hmangaihna chu a ngai reng a ni.

3.      Sakhaw awm chhan rilru thlamuang lo, inhnemna zawng leh ngaih \hatna tur thil anga sawi fo hi a dik famkim lo a. Heng avang ni lo hian miin Pathian a lo pawm \hin tih chu hringfate chanchinah hian hriat tur a tam awm e.

---

[1] David Hume, , The Natural History of Religion (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, ([1757]1956), 75. A thih hnua chhuah Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion –ah pawh a sawi chhunzawm zel.

[2] “The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author,” (21) “regularity and uniformity is the strongest proof of design and of a supreme intelligence,” (42).

[3]Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right,’ trans. Joseph O’Malley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 131.

[4] See Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, trans. Alexander Loos (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004).

[5] See, Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (New York: The Free Press, 1965).

[6] The Future of an Illusion (New York: Liveright, 1961), 44.

[7] Johh Hick-an, “The “primal horde” hypothesis, which Freud took over from Darwin and Robertson Smith, is now generally rejected by anthropologists, and the Oedipus complex itself is no longer regarded, even by many of Freud’s successors, as the key to unlock all doors. Philosophical critics have further pointed out that Freud’s psychic atomism and determinism have the status not of observational reports but of philosophical theories.” See, John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 34.

[8] E. O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), 261f.

[9]Memes tih hi Richard Dawkins-an 1976-a a lehkhabu ziak The Selfish Gene –a tih chhuah a ni a, God Delusion (2006) Chapter 5, ‘The Root of Religion’ ah chipchiar takin he idea hi a hmang \angkai leh a ni.

[10] David Aikman, The Delusion of Disbelief (Carol Stream, Ill: Saltriver, 2008), 66.

[11] Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003), 124.

[12] Alister McGrath, Dawkin’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 128.

[13] 113.

[14] Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin, 2006), 114.