God Rises against ISIS

Tortured by his own very nature, struggling to survive in a world that he didn’t make, abandoned to face the finiteness and the limits of resources, energy and time, man is left to create his own system, mandate his own laws, and define his own existence—a task that is inevitable and inescapable. At the same time, mad at God, at the world, at nature, and at himself, man is entangled in a state of fear, anger, loneliness, insecurity and pessimism. On one hand, he realizes that life is precious, rare, and it shouldn’t be given up or wasted, and on the other, life is short, meaningless, and empty. Aware of those characteristics and contradictions, and conscious of the linear path between birth and death, speculations about life, the afterlife, and the purpose and meaning of life are all that have been left to him.
What is life, and what are we to do with it? A twofold question that dooms the rational mind to be forever restless until it is answered adequately and satisfactorily. Scientists view life as a scientific experiment, politicians would play life as if they were playing a game of chess, Hollywood actors would live it as a Broadway show, and NBA and NFL athletes would take it as a race. Nobody goes wrong and no one losses, for after all, it is your life, and it is up to you to do with it whatever you wish. Life is relative, morality is relative, and the purpose of life is relative. There is no absolute truth, there is no universal standard, and there is no God who rules it all. But before we make our minds, let us go on and find out whether such a view is right or wrong.

The Sovereign, The Polis, and The Republic

Thomas Hobbes disagrees with the view that life is relative or that it is up to people to make of life whatever they want. He is rather afraid that the application of such a view would prove disastrous. He thought that people, or at least the average Joes, were not qualified to make important decisions, especially within the field of religion, legislation, and politics. Therefore, he suggested another alternative, which he calls the Sovereign. The Sovereign represents the perfect leader, who has the knowledge, the experience, the wisdom, the power, and the authority to lead the people and make the right and the perfect decision. In Hobbes’ manual, he argued that the Sovereign is the paradigm that will help any state, country, or society to set up the affairs of its people in a good and perfect shape, once it is set in place correctly. Hobbes presents many reasons for depraving people of their rights and proposing the sovereign instead, but two are more relevant than others: the characteristics of life and the state of nature. Hobbes describes life as, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believes that life such as this cannot be trusted to the average man, but should be put in the hands of the professional and the skilled – the Sovereign. Normal people are neither qualified nor capable of figuring life out or making the best of it. As for the state of nature, he strongly believes that the scarcity of goods, the logic of fear, as Alan Ryan describes it, and the competition over power is going to annihilate the human race and tear it apart—as he puts it in Leviathan “for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in death.”

Aristotle, who was a Greek philosopher and thought to be the first scientist based on Encyclopedia Britannica, presented a different proposal. He disagrees with Hobbes in regard to the nature of man. He sees man as a good—natured and nurtured species, whose inclination and propensity are in line with his rational mind. Apparently, Aristotle is a philosopher of belief and optimism; thereupon, he suggested that people might not necessarily have a need for the Sovereign but a nice place called the Polis. The Polis, which means “the city,” is the ideal place that hold the community together and represents its civility, beauty, and goodness. It represents the development and the advancement that humanity made over the years, which allows the potential for goodness, harmony, and unity to be well-utilized and beneficial for everyone.

Plato held a different opinion. Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, and he believed that degeneration and decay, which are the traits of humanity, cannot be overcome or resolved by merely developing an optimistic perspective, nor by implementing the idea that harmony is found in unity. He argues that only a systematic and organized body of rules that takes into consideration the nature of man and its encounter in laws and mandates, when installed within a kingdom, can stop and survive the cycle of degeneration. Therefore, he suggested one of his most remarkable ideas, The Republic. Plato believed that the republic was the only solution. It can incorporate Hobbes’s Sovereign. Plato termed his view, the “Polis,” and he argued the republic can rule through the chosen upper class, which represents the guardian class who protected the city, as well as the common people, who are content and happy at the bottom of the cast. Problem solved!

The Death of God
The three speculations we just considered—the Sovereign, the Polis, and the republic—are not to be mistaken for the mere thoughts of phony writers and broadcasters like of those we have today. Indeed, those speculations were the product of a real and genuine class of thinkers and philosophers, whose concerns and thoughts were genuine, honest and unbiased. Those speculations were the product of diligent effort, strong struggle, and honest thinking in an effort to solve the most pressing and urgent problems of the human race.