On The Limitations of Monotheism

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

The argument for using animals in scientific research and testing is a philosophical one; the argument is derived from the assumption or belief that there is only one god.

We understand the common sense in animal experimentation; the goal of healthier human life. Scientists exist on the cutting edge of education, experimenting on mice, cats, monkeys, squid, etc… The first step to this education and research is humanely putting the animal to death. There are many regulations how and in what way this first step must be accomplished.

This is not an argument against animal testing per se. But how did we come to feel we have a license to kill other living beings in the first place? I speculate this license to kill exists because of our monotheistic belief system.

When we believe in one god, we see ourselves in the image of this one god. We humanize our one god. We deduce we can act in the service of this one god even if it means killing off life for the betterment of life that remains. Essentially, we assign ourselves the task of “playing the role” of this one god.

Why not play the role of many gods? Alternatively, why play at a role at all?

A small example: my scientist friends think of my relationship with my cat as slightly deranged. They are humored by this relationship between me and my cat. Equally, I find it strange that laughter seems the only response to my friends’ intolerance. How could I possibly treat an animal as a family member? I understand the absurdity involved with having a cat as a best friend. I am a human being after all. But what if I said that it is “spiritually rewarding”, this relationship I have with my cat? Would you not grant me this honesty? Would you insist, in the face of what you may categorize as eccentricity, that I would do better to kill off my cat sooner rather than later instead of when I plan to? When she is at the end of her life and I judge that her pain has become overwhelming to her and I see this because I know her so well? I can play the role of this one god better than you, if only in this particular case, because I am better informed. You see?

And therein lies the crux of the matter.

We arrive at competition against one another in our ability (or inability) to play the role of our one god. Can this be all there is? Should not our mortal lives be a little more complex than this?

So how do we argue for the case of animal experimentation without already believing that we were made in the image of one god and that all other beings, animals, resources, plants are here on Earth at our disposal? The simple answer is this: we don’t have to argue because we believe we are superior to all living things. If not human, then subservient. The logic is simple. We have larger brains; we are insistent and capable in our intolerance. Just watch us as we go about conducting our daily lives.

Now we begin to understand the massive mess and pain and problems that can occur; and to name just a few of the religions subscribing to monotheism: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

Think of jihad. Think of the BP oil spill. Think of Israel and Palestine. I find it deranged that we can only repeat a history of immature, competitive groping, “mine, mine, mine!” It is as if we are children in the eyes of our one god and our one god is our cumulative father. Now that’s absurd!

It seems to me we should be able to see ourselves in a much different light, ironically in a much healthier light, if we philosophically believed ourselves to be just a piece of a grand puzzle that includes all living forms: all mythological and metaphysical forms. What about the wind and the rain? The forest, the sun and the sea?

Perhaps something akin to Shintoism, or the mysticism of our decimated Native American brethren: a spirit in all things. An expansion to our current level of consciousness; to a state where faith and hope can truly coexist. And not only because we have translated the words of our one god to instruct us so.

A reverence that all life arrives to us in the form of a treasured question, so we can adeptly dispel with the pressures involved in forcing answers to fit in the small window of a limited, monotheistic belief.

No doubt we are finding out quickly that Nature does not exist simply for our benefit. Life is not a game; it is not merely an intellectual exercise. We are being drawn in to a sort of combat for our survival: déjà vu all over again.

You would think most of us would prefer the destruction to subside. You would think we should be capable of killing less, of butchering less, of raping less. You would think we would encourage one another to utilize our larger brain capacity in a more beneficial manner — for all life.

You would think…

Despite our inherent tendency to destroy, humankind should be able to embrace options beyond a restrictive, unimaginative monotheism that consistently leads to a sordid repetition of what we think this image of our one god should be.

Unfortunately, monotheism disallows the coexistent of faith and hope. We say we have faith, but the words ring hollow. We are afraid to have hope because it is too difficult to care beyond our own selfish desires.