OF BELIEF and what we have made of IT

I mounted the rostrum in Geneva, Switzerland, to address the League of Nations and to appeal for relief from the destruction which had been unleashed against my defenceless nation, by the fascist invader. I spoke then both to and for the conscience of the world. My words went unheeded, but history testifies to the accuracy of the waning that I gave in 1936. Today, I stand before the world organization which has succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor. In this body is enshrined the principle of collective security which I unsuccessfully invoked at Geneva. Here, in this Assembly, reposes the best-perhaps the last- hope for the peace of mankind. Ras Tafari (Haile Selassie)

If to be “imprisoned” were solely the concerns of social and judicial institutes, as some sort of inimitable consequence of justice and its process, then one should think the world would be better off. But the world as a giant essence finds ways to imprison itself beyond the familiar confines of fetters, chains and regimented penitentiaries. Possibly because its bounds is of a kind different from that which has been mentioned. Be it through eccentric ethos, ideological oddities, religious extremism or misguided popular sensibilities, we as thinking beings, defined by decades of urbane scholarship, constantly imprison ourselves—by constantly deceiving ourselves (and one another) with misguided faiths in bodies of deceits, falsehood and falsities. We seal our fate as a race of peoples, and as individuals, with that which is the enemy: the enemy which is the world; the world which regrettably is us.

History has revealed man and faith/belief as two constancies (one an entity, the other a concept) in steady relationship with each other, as both cannot in extant independently be. Sadly this is the founding basis for two prospects: of which one is the indispensible actuality of belief. And the other, the configuration of such belief and how it (the mechanics of it) aligns with our varying degrees of Innatism (if we are to momentarily suggests the tenets of Subjective Impressions are non-existent), presenting itself nonetheless as a sine qua non for successful epistemological, ontological, material and metaphysical pursuits. This faith could present itself as of a diversified reality to man: faith in intellectual and physical exertions, faith in some higher understanding, faith in a ‘seemingly crude definition’ of true purpose, faith in material determinism, faith in a thought system or faith in a noumenon. Regardless of which ever reality this amorphous totem chooses to commend itself to us, it is widely accepted that the set of man’s actions are to an extent ordered by how he chooses to work this unsubstantial, and as certain non-believers would tag ‘unsubstantiated aspect of human reality’ (bearing in mind the common noun ‘non-believer’ is of a nomenclature encompassing in the light of the material and metaphysical).

Either ways, therein lies a drawback; in the existence of the diverse possibilities which belief could achieve lies the possibility of a familiar sprite: the wish of a select many to either convert this genie of immense possibilities to a thing of evil prospects, or to remain firmly fixated to the spirit of languidness. The first the focus of this essay, and the second an effect of man’s ability to slip into a state of laziness as a result of his knowing or thought of knowing the full extent of his abilities. If a man knows or thinks he knows the extent to which his abilities could go, such knowledge might inhibit some sort of apathy as to exerting himself to pushing to whatever limits there is.

In reality, the devious wishes (mentioned above), which comes as a natural consequence of belief, could either be overt/covert: in terms of the nature of its employment; premeditated or not as a result of the natural propensity to over reach; unplanned as a consequence of man’s obliviousness of his ignorance and limitation, or natural to man as some sort of fallibility. Each tendency reveals the extent to which the extreme ends “evil cravings” and their potency can be put with the intent of manipulation and brainwash. One would agree based on pre-established ‘assumptions’, that man who develops in thinking and creativity does so to create devices through which he would satiate his wants. He nonetheless, as if he were acting by a superior unction, create institutions through which the basest desire (exploit others to satiate his wants) would manifest.

The desires reveal themselves in the conscious acts perpetrated with the intent to pre-empt and consequently douse incendiarism, reducing public outcry to a body of deviant dissent. It is sad that these institutions created to ease man’s sojourn through the world of material and/or sublime, as the pantheists would summate, are same materials through which acts of exploitation are efficaciously, albeit clandestinely perpetrated: institution of politics, economy, religion and other pillars of existence that define what man views as reality and society—what else could be more ironical?

Pathetic is the case of those who have either by chance, some crude definition of fate, or through strangely justifiable sense of gullibility allowed themselves remain a pun. More pathetic is those who churn their unenviable circumstance to some higher understanding or supreme body and its primal wish for them to be so fated, as if by no fault of theirs do they suffer this fate. Subscribing unwisely, if I may assert, to Leibniz’s theory of Pre-established Harmony: a radical rejection of causality, submitting the entirety of mankind and its actions to some predetermined sublime plan as against the belief in mechanical causation, eliminating as nonexistent freewill, or as merely illusion, and inadvertently responsibility which functions as the matter of this essay. They attach the entirety of their essence to that of a second, sometimes third party, with zero vacuum for personal assertion, resultantly allowing such third party an unhindered access to manipulation and reconstruction using any device/means whatsoever, considering the responsibility that by natural inclination arises from personal undertaking and control of who/what and when to stop believing is regrettably absent.

Haile Selassie, a leader of calibre in his rights sought for the support of The League of Nations in 1936 against the onslaught of brutality displayed by the Facist Benito Mussolini not because he thought the war was a lost cause before its onset; but because as a body of authority be believed it lay within its (L.O.N) means to establish peace and sanity where needed. They (body) in turn fell short of this expectation. To them it was a matter of personal interest, they cast the dice of relevance and Ethopia was found wanting. Haile lost the war, was exiled and Ethiopia, reduced to a conquered colony, because his faith was misplaced in a body of spuriousness. El Che, Chez Guevara, tethered his crusade towards similar inclination only to be brutally murdered (indirectly) by the same powers-that-be years after his inability to canvass support for his campaign against oppression from the United Nations, a reformed body (only in nomenclature) from its disingenuous predecessor. He is quoted to have asked “can the UN do nothing to stop this”. And indeed they did nothing. The idea presents itself that the reality of a body raised to the grandiosity of that nature to handle the affairs of the world free of prejudice, egoism or other forms of favouritism is such which has gone off course, from the credo of its initial programming that is. Such body exists as one not after the safety of the lowly or weak as is meant to be, but always on the side of who has the best to offer. And yet it is these seemingly weak that toggle their faith to these bodies of pretentious fellows, thinking they as a group of followers have their interests at the fore-front of matters arising. Perhaps this is the knowledge many seem to certainly lack or the foible ingrained in others to perpetually remind how infallible or limited we are in scope. However, by now, the Rwandans would kick themselves hard when memory reminds them of the civil (Hutu versus Totsi) war which tore their landlocked nation into shreds (1994). The reality of their foolery dealt them stunning blows which rocked their resolve to its rudders when the UN came and rescued the foreign whites in Rwanda, of course they couldn’t make provisions for the others (blacks). The reality is, Rwanda, bordered by Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and lake Kivu is of no benefit whatsoever to the powers that be, and such a civil war borne out of immense stupidity over political squabbles is not such they would waste their resources on. Perchance when realisation dawned, taking its course as expected that the world cared less if they annihilated one another into limbo, they reconsidered. The question then presents itself, without obscurity, that how true is the body brought to life for the effectuation of liberty of the oppressed, curbing not the excesses of those who make it up? Perhaps the real question should be to which quarters should the blamed be concentrated? The mastermind behind the creation of institutions of relief, pretentious in the intent of snuffing out every smudge of oppression or the capriciously pliable mind that constantly refuses to unhinge its belief/faith system from this apparel of disregard and deceit, regardless of how inhuman its actions APPEAR to be? Nonetheless the existence of a good thing is most times brought to blinding focus to becloud the reality of its evil tendencies.

We not only become greatly misled by the blinding good qualities that has been afforded us, we become playthings of wanton men and reckless canons, doing ourselves harm as unto others, playing our parts in series of theatrics we truly have no inclination of whatsoever. Like animated robots acting out in proper and cultured ignorance, we allow our faith to box us in, fuelling that innate although largely subliminally desire at abandon—an intemperance that endangers us, and others in turn, as a race.

Presumably and as J.A.V Simpson said, “Reality is what exists whether we believe or not…” meaning in what seem a more convincing sense, reality is what we know it to be. Perhaps then we can partially assent with the notion that our reality is that which sets out as what we perceive, intellectually and otherwise. This ultimately does not chalk the corollary of such convictions (proves of our reality), which sometimes are unintended, as fantasies, wishful thinking, reducible guessworks, surmises of sort, presumptuous postulations, superficial inferences or hypothetical speculations. We cannot conjecture that because the existence of a thing may (seemingly) bring forth unintended ramifications such thing then is better off as either good or bad. Many quarters have clamoured about the overly dependence on the “perceived” existence of a nouemon or celestial being–as contemporary usage permits–accessible neither to ideals of empiricism or positivism, and the authoritatively biased damming light through which it operates as a show of high-handed tomfoolery, at best that is. Some others, explicating similar brainy imperiousness as the first which they themselves are positioned to castigate, summarily disregard such beliefs as a corpus of unverifiable propositions. Sidney Hook would go as far as tag religious doctrines as “a set of cognitive beliefs constituting speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability”. Regardless of whatever truth is certain as regards the veracity of the sublime, the reality is man has glibly retracted from the original intent behind the inception of religion as an institution created to understand man’s reality, if it indeed exists. Just like any other social institution, religion has suffered manipulation in its configuration in man’s matrix.

History books record through time the atrocities man has perpetrated using religion as a vessel. Be it through the pogrom-causing beliefs/tenets of the ‘said Muslims’. The vast majority of terrorist groups plaguing the international community are birthed from the dissident eggshells of the Islamic religion, or extremely deviant/renegade group as a number of rightwing Islamists would summit. From the United Liberation Front of Assam, Tazim, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Nafaz Sharait-e-eMohannadi, Taliban, Students Islamic Movement of India, society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakitan, Tevhid-Selam (Al-Quds Army), Revolutionary Party of Kurdistan, Quds Force, People’ Mujahedin of Iran, Paletine Liberation Front, Muslim Brotherhood, Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Lybia Islamic Fighting Group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, khalitan Zindabad Force, Kata’ib Hezbollah, Jund al-Sham, Jund al-Khilafah, Jund al-Aqsa, Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid, Jamiat ul-Absar, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Islamic Jihad Union, Houthis, Hizbul Mujahideen, Hilafet Devieti, Hezbollah Al-Hejaz, Hezbollah, ETA, Eqyptian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia), (Libya), Alshabaab, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, Al Ghurabaa, Al-Badr, Ajnad Misr to Boko Haram, among a host of others are world-wide known and certified terrorist groups by United Nations, (Willaimson and Myra, 2009). The fascinating thing about these groups and their nihilistic propensities isn’t bordered on the excuse of ignorance or lack of certain levels of education, such position of argument is as vapid as uncreative. These terrorist groups known for plaguing the world with appalling levels of insidiousness are supposedly religious groups, if such sacrosanct sense dully appropriates. How is it then that some can make excuses for these acts and (the religion) that fuels its hatred against mankind in whose matrix it has been established to shed light, peace and aid understanding? Perhaps some obstinate conservationist would object, as commonplace, and decry such acts of insanity and the infamous bodies that spin them as being solely the proclivities of leftist Islamists who are hiding under the grace of Islam to perpetrate such fondness. Be that as it may, research as it that Islam and its holy book supports Jihad, and common sense would dole out the real semantics behind Jihad for any in need of its meaning. So the question then remains is it the religion that has chanced evil on mankind, if some diehard fanatics still believe it being full of grace and mercy? Or are the selfish wiles of a few the grand puppeteers behind the manipulation and reprogram of tenets of a religion in order to orchestrate and induce thoughtless obeisance?

In furtherance of the foregoing, it is a valid truth, although possibly and, frequently ignored, that religion is indeed the opium of the unprivileged; either ways, the unquestionable inhuman decrees of the Catholic Church of the middle ages or their holy crusade which saw to the desiccation of those tagged, pagans and heretics ((non-Christians (Arabs inclusive)), even though certain intransigent dyed-in-the-wool sects should still sum such as entirely politics oriented, has perhaps reinforced such notion than otherwise—subjecting the credibility of the religion to immense doubt. Medieval Christendom perceived itself as having a right of duty to expand, to convert and dominate Muslims and pagans, and to bring dissident Christians back to the fold. When English forces helped take Lisbon from the Moors in 1147, they were carrying out what seemed the true purpose of a Crusade. This was also true for German soldiers under the banner of the Teutonic Knights when they imposed Christianity on the pagans of eastern Germany and the Baltic in the 12th and 13th centuries. And while some decried this as false Crusade and would position to still do same, saying that greed was being sanctified by ecclesiastical banners, posterity records that most of Europe endorsed the brutal warfare and the re-imposition of Catholicism. This was, in their eyes, a Crusade for Christ’s church and people, as valid as any of the expeditions to the Holy Land. Operating in similar fashion as the overreaching, hypocritical, power enthused political bodies earlier mentioned, formatted to carter for its followers its leaders (ecclesiastical) do not falter in snuffing out the slightest appearance of opposition under the guile of heretics and heresy. All these are a few focal points in what I roughly sum as some sort of dark tripartite web history in Catholic Christendom: The medieval inquisition (4th century), Roman Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition (1478) having the backing of the Roman Catholic Church either directly: they being the principal officers or indirectly: they being the remote cause for its inauguration. The case of Galileo Galilee is a popular frame of reference, but many may be in the dark a regards the history of Jan Huss 1372 – 1415. Czech priest and religious reformer, John Huss (Jan hus), criticizes the abuses of the catholic church. His beliefs in predestination and Christ as the only head of the church foreshadowed the Lutheran reformation. He was burned at the stake in 1415 because he refused to deny what he preached that ecclesiastical officials were inevitably corrupt, and that Christ rather than any official, is the true head of the church. That, which immediately gave impetus to the Hussite war (1419-1436), amongst many others like the Great Schism (1378-1417), which snowballed into the great scandal of Christendom: a battle for supremacy and papacy among two/three popes as each claimed being the rightful pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, as Pope Innocent V deemed fit to call himself: and in the bigger picture, remotely caved way for the Protestant Reformation from the Roman Catholic church as against the popular belief of Christian deviants (Martin Luther) as we have been made to believe, or not (History Encyclopedia, Encarta, 2009)

Do we then surmise the Christian doctrine as a corpus of hypocritical falsities? I wouldn’t be quick on the draw to hop on that quicksand of endless, mindless (I must summit) and at best confusing claims. Religion in its right is true and on the other side of history has helped in casting light on the patches of ignorance that has more by the efforts of others than by itself characterized our existence. Still, one cannot ignore the basic truth that religion has found its way into the manipulative hands of the sons of Adam, those with the insatiable banal desire to deceive many through their beliefs in it. Are the priests who sanctioned deaths of those who because they held dissimilar views (which time has vindicated) different from the ignoramuses of New Orleans, Salem and Massachusetts who burned and hung supposed witches to satisfy their vapid ignorance (1692-1693), aided by the devout insecurities of the Christian courts, Protestant Reformers and the English court. There has always existed a dark symbiosis between politics and religion and perhaps this is because both are institutions created by sane minds as we have been led to believe to help understand his world, creating an avenue nonetheless where the ends of the personal machinations of the ambitious few are safely birthed. Are we then to be unwisely lopsided to blame the means through which light is meant to be shed for being a pun so to speak, or those who are quicksilver with the wit and strength of character to divert the prospects of faith for their personal devices; or does the lot of blame truly fall on those who have allowed themselves to be misled not with their belief firmly tethered to the fabric of this institution (religion) but to those who have imperfectly disguised themselves as the corpus and vicar of all that is true (the institution), must be revered and obeyed–presenting themselves as the easiest and realest way to the truth which we all seek? Most possibly, religion may be just a vessel, below what we have made it to be or not. But then we cannot afford the expense of believing in nothing.

The reality of everything we hold dear is anchored on how strong our conviction is—how true, divine and real they are. Are they true in the sense of being above every conceivable human parameters of scepticism? Real in the light of them being the precise pathway to which true purpose and reality is allowed maturity of time devoid of questions of existence, confusion of rationale and ambiguities of convictions? As I do construe, religion is a (relatively) no question asked reality, with your fate/faith/belief fastened to the single consciousness in control of the world of material and immaterial, depending on which ever circus you fall to among the henotheists, monotheists, polytheists and deists. But what most, especially of Atheism, Agnosticism or (ignostics inclusive) awareness in their spate of seemingly well thought out, somewhat superficial and nonetheless hurriedly construed opinion champion is the total negation of the mysteries of reality. To them every unsolved question of reality is so owing to the negligence of some, the somnolence of many and the tomfooleries of others. In order to avoid the mundane argument of which is true and which is not, it is safe to say that the majority of these beliefs, against the indoctrinations of the theists, are borne-of the inability to subscribe to the theistic explanations of either the ontological argument, the incoherence of theism, the matter of morality or the evidential question (intellectual and emotional) of evil. Atheism exits not as a pathway, a set of beliefs (in the conventional usage) or strings of canons to which answers for reality can be got. As of fact, some scholarly quarters have attributed atheism as some sort of ideological supplement for the various philosophical ideas and world views. In connection to the foregoing, atheism has sometimes been associated with the philosophical ideas of materialism, which holds that only matter exists; communism, which asserts that religion impedes human progress; and rationalism, which emphasizes analytic reasoning over other sources of knowledge. However, there is no necessary connection between atheism and these positions. Some atheists have opposed communism and some have rejected materialism. Although nearly all contemporary materialists are atheists, the ancient Greek materialist Epicurus believed the gods were made of matter in the form of atoms. Rationalists such as French philosopher René Descartes have believed in God, whereas atheists such as Sartre are not considered to be rationalists. Atheism has also been associated with systems of thought that reject authority, such as anarchism, a political theory opposed to all forms of government, and existentialism, a philosophic movement that emphasizes absolute human freedom of choice; there is however no necessary connection between atheism and these positions. British analytic philosopher A. J. Ayer was an atheist who opposed existentialism, while Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was an existentialist who accepted God. Marx was an atheist who rejected anarchism while Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, a Christian, embraced anarchism. Because atheism in strict sense is merely a negation, it does not provide a comprehensive worldview. Atheism is primarily a reaction to, or a rejection of, religious beliefs. Not only does the various concepts of atheism make it hard to see it as a body of pedagogical norms, but its ability to subsists mainly as a reaction against, and negation, of an established sensibility without credible efforts, whatsoever, to explain the basis of the reality, which what it seeks to supersede does, makes it laughable at best, and at worst, dangerous to the mind. Rather than be a source of understanding which would usher man into a new awareness which having been affected by ignorance, disbelieve or simple avoidance has been kept at bay.

Atheism has succeeded in claiming for itself and its people the disregard of certain truths without explanations of its own. For a man who seeks to negate the principles of a doctrine and reduce such to a corpus of falsities should not only come up with substantial elucidation as to why, but also shed new light on that which what it has rubbished has done, failure to do makes such a man and his ideas ugly. Why should I subscribe to something that has presented itself as having all the necessary to throw a world of familiarity out of the comfort of its canons, demolishing pre-established ethos in the process of building up arguments against its credibility, without any effort whatsoever, in the process of such countermotions, as to proving itself more credible, offering no explicit elucidation or any at all, to illuminate the shrouded circumstances to which the debunked beliefs which it has discredited as falsities have offered relatively reasonable enlightenment? Perhaps the fanatical atheist may say antagonistic scholastic/theological positions have assassinated the original intent of Atheism in what can be termed “the Presumption of Atheism”, that their knowledge of the non-existence of a supreme being is based on the absence of evidence. Some like Craig take if a notch further that many imbue atheistic positions with that of agnostics as regards the former being the absence of belief in supreme consciousness, diety, instead of a robust knowledge of the absence of any divine consciousness. Moreover, it is precisely the absence of evidence to validate this reality (the presence of a deity) that justifies this mundane and rather too subjective knowledge of the non-existence of a deity. Perhaps the forensic aphorism “that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” could clarify more. The absence of evidence could only be the evidence of absence in cases which, were the postulated entity which was to exist does, we should expect more evidence of its existence than we already do, which nonetheless means there exist certain proofs of its existence however few/little or insubstantial: a position/theory atheists wouldn’t acknowledge. What better is the foundation of an idea that castigates as unrefined dogmas the overly assertiveness of a rival ideology, using the same definitive approach which it sets to berate? Or how better is a position that seeks to pinpoint incoherence in theistic doctrines, while lacking compatibility within its various types (practical, theoretical, negative, positive, implicit and explicit atheism (and possibly in some light new atheism)). If existing explanations is to be rebuffed by an opposing position to make people see and believe why ‘it’ is the truth, then such shouldn’t stop at the shallowness of mere negation for the clarity of those who are to make it the basis of their reality. Most of those who peddle atheistic claims, especially of this era (new atheists), do such with a sort of unthinking, unlike atheists of old, fostered by shallowness of reasoning, languidness as to proper thinking, insecurity of attempt in submission to the understanding of something greater than the mechanical reality. Their thoughts do not come from a place of knowledge, sophistication of education or assiduous research but more from a mindset inundated with fear and an array of insecurities caused by too simplistic reasoning, hasty generalizations and unhealthy doubts. At least science do not totally subject to the explanations of theism as to reality, and has not only fated itself to negation, it has come up with substantial explanations of its own, credible in certain lights.

As a result of the foregoing, and the inability to suggest to an understanding of such magnitude/commitment, or subject to the gains of personal undertaking as to what is true or not, many have subscribed to the plethora of worldviews, array of philosophies and plenitude of intellectual positions available without noteworthy scepticism enough to induce positive personal conclusions. Many are quick on the trigger to forget that these attitudinal and intellectual positions are birthed form insights, intellectual intrusions, machinations and devices from the place of personal ambition and will. Various philosophies are coined by sages have thought and undergone the process of thought. They have prospective generations subscribing to these personal judgements without much room for individual assessment or thorough perusal as to causality and relative efficaciousness–causing a sort of slovenliness of the mind that most would consider infectious. This as well goes for political theories, ideologies and assumptions that have threatened to unveil the last thread of sanity holding the world together. Fascism rendered unused in the politics of the 21st century which nearly tore the world apart was created by, Benito Mussolini; Nasizm and its narcissist repercautions by Adolf Hitler; Anarchism, Joseph Proudhon; Anti-Semitsm, an official policy of Nazism; Machiavellism, the upshot of the political renderings of Niccolo Machiavelli, whose deliberate erasure of moral considerations in his treatment politics led to his name and ideas being substitute for all that is diabolical in both private and public policy (Introductory Note, The Prince, N. Machiavelli, 1909); the Price Sisters and their profound, undaunted terroristic IRA activities, steeped in Marxist ideology amongst a host of others. These are ideologies thought up by persons who having being through the rigours of insightful cogitations have weighed things in subjective/objective perspective, see them as the right fix for their present circumstance. Pity is for those who blindly permeate their entirety in such convictions without appropriate evaluation of their compatibility with present circumstance or how practically conventional they are.

More so, some of these assertions have continually proven themselves in habitual discordance, negating and reducing one another to falsities incapable of the rigours of intense intellectual scrutiny; Cynicism of Diogenes criticised and reduced to insignificance by the Stoics for their eccentricities and insolence; and the various forms of Hedonism rendered morally obscene by the ethos of Epicureanism. Temporal infringement wouldn’t allow for the mention of the various indoctrinations and beliefs that if one were to believe for its sake, would make one jettison the others and their followers as completely ugly absurdities, thoughtlessly foolish in all ramifications. This is importantly the reason why beliefs should be fastidiously moored on personal convictions, a well grounded understanding of how such belief operates in tandem with our subsistence, and how beliefs in general are susceptible to manipulation by others. And not because popular consciousness sanctions such, or a glorified entity seemingly commends himself as saturated with the unction, knowledge and ability to pass on the needed miracle (physical, spiritual or otherwise) and neither because an importunate circumstance demands such reckless kowtow.

A few months back I engaged in a discourse about the belief in solutions and their unanticipated repercussions. An individual had posited that the existence of condoms has domed the world (and this he intransigently believed) because of those who present it as an impeccable option—causing more harm, as a result of an upsurge in the number of sexual escapades, and inadvertently sexual problems than before its emergence. The other faction had subscribed that condoms are the best solution, creating a safer atmosphere for copulation, negating the ideals of the Catholic Pope who decried its use. I had simply explained my take on the issue that the mere existence of such measure and the pervading air of guaranteed protection which it wields have caused a strong trail of lassitude as to proper usage and orientation, owing to its false sense of security. I believed this hasn’t solved the problem it was meant to tackle and yet, still causes a new crop of issues, but without it being necessarily the sole reason behind the ills in sexology. To have said otherwise definitely would be to submit to the same ridiculous extrapolation that something can be the total root-cause of everything as in the case of money being the root cause of all evils. You see persons detaching the contraceptive from its sheet with their teeth, inadvertently creating tiny holes in the latex before usage. Such show of carelessness is brought about by the misleading belief in its supposed infallibility. An effect can morph into a cause, bolstering the original cause and producing the similar effect in a reinforced form, and indefinitely. A man may use condom for fear of STD, and gets it, STD, nonetheless because he uses condom. Not because of total ineffectiveness but because a false sense of security: consequence of the air of infallibility attached which induces the belief of impeccable assuredness. Hence slip-ups and mistakes become feasible, the case which wouldn’t be if all cards were laid bare and extra care (responsibility) not total belief which provokes transference of accountability/responsibility was in play. It is rather the same thing that is with the case of “Belief”. Total belief caves room for total submission and removes sensibility and responsibility, as I have fore-stated–sensibility as to questioning, and responsibility as to be akin to understand why and at what point such belief is right for the individual and when not. This puts a bar on many who to glibly manipulate such compliance for their own advantage, hiding under the grace of those means (institutions/belief systems) is an assuredly effective means.

In a bid to conclude what this essay has tried so much from its first letter to elucidate and perhaps enlighten, if such can be attributed, is to surmise that belief is one thing pivotal, hence should be made far from the reach of light-heartedness and reckless thinking in any form whatsoever. The human should strive to believe in something or one thing. Believe in a single thing as well as, perhaps, many things, not because it is the single thing available or such appeals most, or owes to pop sensibility as the truest path. But because we understand it and it sits well with us in all awareness achievable, for most things and their perpetrators are deceitful and deceivers not because they are and were made that way, but because they are privy, possibly through thought and reason, or perchance through experience–personal and otherwise, which affords them the realisation that made with man is the insatiably insecure motive to make others or something the pillar of existence. Pillars to which acts of responsibility, accountability, perhaps reasoning and decisions are nonetheless entirely transferred; attaching their reality for an assuredness: fleeting and specious.

Bibliography

Edward, Paul (2005) “Atheism”. In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philiosphy. Vol1.

Dawkins. R.(2006). “The God Delusion”. Batam Press, Transworld Publishers, London

History Encyclopaedia, Microsoft Encarta (2009). 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.

Machiavelli, N. The Prince, translated by N.H. Thomson. Vol. XXXVI, Part 1. The Harvard Classics.: P.F. Collier & Son, New York 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001

William, C. “Theistic Critiques of Atheism”

Hitchens, C. god is not great.

Unknown, (2003). The World’s Most Infamous Killers. Chancellor Press, London.

Dami Lare is a graduate of English and Literature who thinks and writes as if his life depends on it. His works have been featured in magazines, journals, anthologies and online sites.  He runs  a blog, Undyrated, where he sometimes puts his thoughts.