Index Hell or Heaven—The

U W C A D P H I L O S O P H Y M A G A Z I N E

DoWeKnow

If God is all-powerful and

all-loving, how is it possible

that Evil (HUMANS) can

exist?

Religious Freedom on Albania

Hell Or Heaven—The Backbone of Religion

�II

I N D E X

If God is all-powerful and all-loving, how is it possible that Evil (HUMANS) can exist? By Claire Franco

Hell or Heaven—The backbone of Religion. By Atharv Dhiman

Religious freedom in Albania. By Rina Cakrani

Is Religion Slavery or Freedom in the end? By Celio Ho

A spaced out God. By Mikita Hanets

The Big Sales. By Niccolo Piras

Islam and the new Middle East. By Hamza Khaleel

What is God if not my hoax? By Andrej Antonič

The Quest: on Scientology. By Celine Lau

A Cosmologists View. By Valeria Grisoni

Religion – the great divider or a unifier? By Maja Cernja

Marcelo’s Musings. By Marcelo

�III

�IV

If God is all-powerful and all-loving, how is it possible that Evil

(HUMANS) can exist?

By Claire Franco

We humans are inclined to think of ourselves as separate from the rest of the natural

world, the head of the evolutionarily conscious spear, progressing at an exponential rate. We

have developed concepts of self and identity, passion and boredom. With this assurance, we have

created gods and destroyed them, crowned ourselves sovereign and then continued to destroy

each other. Though our base instincts reflect those of other creatures, we operate under the

illusion of freewill and the persisting echo of individual egos. This selfishness disrupts and

distorts the otherwise harmonious rhythm of the terrestrial pulse and magnifies the net suffering

of the planet.

Among other distinctions, humans have the capacity to conceptualize complex systems of

time, as evidenced by the maintenance of our memory and long-term aspirations, as well as our

varied interpretations of the mortal condition. German grump Arthur Schopenhauer believes that

this accounts for the amplification of our sensations. While both pleasure and pain are

experienced more intensely by humans, he holds that there is a general asymmetry in the amount of

the two forces: “A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or

that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in

eating another with those of the animal being eaten.” The only doctrine, political or otherwise,

that can fulfill its promise to end suffering is that of anti-natalism, or the gradual extinction of

the human race though the denial of reproduction.

Anti-natalism assigns a negative value to birth and discourages the introduction of new human

life. Without being blindly pro-death, however, which would imply the unconditional and active

annihilation of all human life, anti-natalism accommodates already existing life so long as it does

not propagate the human race for more generations. Moreover, the decision to eliminate already

existing life has a different gravity and set of consequences than that of the refusal to conceive

new life. South African anti-natalist David Benatar presents the following argument:

1. The presence of pleasure is GOOD

2. The presence of pain is BAD ---------------------------------------------------

�V

3. The absence of pain is GOOD

4. The absence of pleasure is NOT BAD*

*unless there is someone for whom this absence is a deprivation

What if a potential parent feels that she is being deprived of her natural purpose, a duty to

carry a child and propagate the species? This desire is programmed biologically and in many cases,

socially. However, we as humans find many reasons to deny aspects of our biological programming.

Such is the case with diets, suicide, and the practice of foot-binding. Furthermore, we often pride

ourselves for having progressed beyond the confines of our animalistic instincts, a challenge

posed by legislature that condemns acts of violence, rape, and theft, among other crimes that

threaten the coherence of cooperative, “civilized” living. In fact, what could be more criminal

than the unconsented conjuring of consciousness where before there was peaceful nonexistence?

In any case, anti-natalism does not demand total denial of the mating instinct— sexual intercourse

is permitted so long as it does not lead to conception.

The most common or instinctual counter-argument would be to consider a scale on which

pleasure weighs so great that it redeems the burden of existence, the presence of suffering.

However, any presence at all of pain upsets the equation in favour of nothing. Benatar states that

it would not make sense to bring children into the world so that they may experience pleasure.

Rather, it follows more justified logic to refrain from reproduction as to spare sentient beings

from the world’s suffering. One way that some account for and accept the pain in the world is by

trusting that it is serving some greater purpose or larger plan. Some claim that suffering is

strength or inspiration or something to be grateful for. Even if they do not see the immediate

benefits of such pain, they might assume that it will contribute to some measure of good in the

future, even that beyond their limited human understanding. In the opinion of an American

professor of philosophy John G.

Messerly: “If this justification depends upon an eternal plan, then the eternal planner is

exceptionally evil.”

Let us take God out of the equation. In a more anthropocentric worldview, a human is

created from the union of an egg and a sperm cell, rather than drops from some divinely vital

spring. In this case, a man and a woman are themselves responsible for the conception of sentience.

As there is no way to ask a potential being if he would choose to be brought into existence, the �VI

human is hurled into reality on the judgment of the parents, who are perhaps a young human’s first

encounters with love and authority, characteristics usually granted to the God of the

monotheists. In many social traditions, parental love is sanctified as one of the most pure and

powerful forms of affection. However, in the opinion of Schopenhauer, many couples would not

decide to conceive at all if the act itself did not entail a passionate and pleasurable experience.

He believed natality rates would plummet if people would take the time to rationally calculate

whether it is a justified decision to bring new life into this world of suffering.

Anti-natalism does not only work to the benefit, or rather the sparing, of the human race.

Our agricultural practices, carbon footprint, depletion of natural resources, and other factors

affect the earth’s climate more than those of any other species. While there is a possibility that

we are not uniquely sentient beings on this planet, we are at least the most arrogant and

irresponsible with our capacity. Several times in the past century alone, we have come terrifyingly

close to violently eradicating significant portions of the human population, not to speak of the

detrimental side-effects for the non-human living things among them. Therefore, our existence is

a both a disservice to others, and a grand experiment with our (seemingly) unique human aptitude

for suffering. Why not instead choose voluntary extinction in an act of responsible kindness?

I am not in a bad mood, nor am I currently affected by any significant waves of anxiety or

frustration. Furthermore, I do not feel that anti-natalism implies a hatred of humanity or a sense

of fatigued resignation. In fact, the denial of the reproductive instinct can be a decision made

with the most genuine goodwill and respect for posterity. It was not our own decision to be

created, either by the love of God or our parents. It is, however, our right to choose how we

will live and more cooperatively, whether we will continue to live as a species. Just as I would

not support the forceful destruction of life, as in the case of homicide, I would neither support

the forceful creation of life, as with unconsented conception. Taking the advice of the fictional

homicide detective Rust Cohle, the most honourable thing for our species to do at this point is to

“walk hand and hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw

deal.”

P.S. I change my mind about this a lot.

�VII

Hell or Heaven—The backbone of Religion by Atharv Dhiman

The concept of Heaven and Hell have existed since the inception of

religion. While atheists argue against the idea of religion and the abstractness of Hell and

Heaven itself, I find these concepts quite amusing. It is also interesting how most of the religions

have these ideas and how they are integral parts of the practice of the religion.

Dante Alighieri, in his epic The Divine Comedy, lucidly explains the intricacies of Hell and

Heaven and how people are treated according to their actions in their lifetime. From incessant

fiery graves to the illuminated land of prudence, it is a journey of a mortal through Hell,

Purgatory and eventually Heaven. The Christian concept of Hell and Heaven is described in a

way which has strict cause and effect rule for the person’s just placement in one of the fore

mentioned places. Religions rooting to similar origins share similar concepts of Hell and Heaven,

though the rules of cause and effect might be expressed differently.

Being a step further, Hinduism has a peculiar stand on the existence of Hell and Heaven, by

clearly stating that there is a land of Gods and a land of Demons but the souls of humans do not

enter those realms as a consequence of their past actions. What Hinduism describes can be easily

illustrated using an example of dreams. When one has had a bad day, one usually has bad dreams at

night, or restlessness for the entire duration of sleep, whereas when one has experienced a good

day, one tends to have a peaceful sleep with better dreams. Similarly, Hinduism states that when

one person dies, one’s soul goes to a dream-like state in a surrounding which is apt to his actions in

his past life. The soul might stay for as long as it wants but when it goes towards its next life, it

encounters the same consequences as its dream-like state. This also strongly solidifies the

concept of Karma in Hinduism.

However, Buddhism strongly denies an existence of Hell and Heaven as a place beneath one’s feet

or high above in the sky respectively. What Buddhism states is that Hell and Heaven are simply

states of being, and that the rules of Cause and Effect (Karma) happen simultaneously. which

�VIII

means that when a person commits a bad action (cause) he is in a state of Hell (effect) at that

moment. Additionally there are other factors that lead him to make the cause, therefore the

cause itself is also the effect of those factors, but it goes further in stating that the (cause) has

an effect on the state of mind of the person (effect). The same goes for a person doing a good

action and thus being in Heaven at that point of time. The state of being is transient and ever-

changing, which means that the state of Hell and Heaven are themselves impermanent.

The concept of Hell and Heaven forms the backbone of a religion and is the main driving force

behind religious practices for most of the religions and therefore the philosophy of religion

would be incomplete without peering into this concept.

�IX

Religious freedom in Albania

by Rina Cakrani

Perhaps the thing that I’m most proud of when it comes to my country, is the attitude that

Albanians have towards religion. The tolerance and freedom associated with the concept of

religion in

Albania, is something that distinguishes us from other European countries. I have to say that

‘tolerance’ is not something that we Albanians are known for, but surprisingly we are tolerant to

that thing that even the most developed countries find it hard to deal with.

Albania has been under the influence of both Islam and Christianity. Christianity was introduced

during the Roman rule and continued later on with the Byzantine Empire. The Islamic faith was

introduced in the 14th century with the Ottoman invasion, which lasted for six centuries. Later

on in the 20th century during the fight for independence, some of the Albanians converted to

Christianity in order to oppose the Turkish rule. The patterns of faith kept changing again and

after the independence until the communist rule, the Muslim noble class constituted Albania’s

ruling elite, but this group never interfered with religious freedom, which was sanctioned by

constitution. It stated the country had no official religion and that freedom of exercising

religion was to be assured and that every religion was to be respected. These laws reflected the

true feelings of the people, who, whether Muslim, Orthodox or Roman Catholic, were tolerant

in religious matters.

During the harsh communist rule that Albania faced, religion was prohibited and 95 percent of

all churches and mosques had been burnt down. Nevertheless, this didn’t stop people from keeping

their faith and every campaign against religion proved to be inefficient.

Today, most of the Albanians are Muslims, but that doesn’t create any problem for the other

coexisting religions. Every important event of a religious matter is by law a holiday and people

celebrate it.People celebrate Christmas, Easter, Eid-al-Fiter (Bayram) etc. altogether. For

example, we are Muslims in my family and when there is an important day for the Muslim world,

people with other religious affiliations call to wish us happiness and we do the same on Christmas

Eve or for Easter. We go and visit our Christian relatives, because we know that for them those

are important days and we feel we have to respect that. Because of this, I have to say that unlike

�X

many countries where the presence of many religions becomes a tool of ‘division’, in my country it

is something that unites us. Religion stays separately from other areas and we don’t like to blend

it with any of them.

I don’t know if this tolerance comes from the fact that we are tolerant ourselves as a

nation( even though I believe this is unlikely ), or because religion is not what shapes the way our

society works. I think religion operates in a personal level and people like to keep the moral

values they learn from it. However, whatever the reasons may be for this tolerance , they don’t

matter as long as the freedom of expressing the own beliefs remains untouched.

Even though we don’t have a religion that dominates our society and makes us live under the same

values and interferes with the way we act and behave in our everyday life, we have something else

that does that for us. We have in a certain way invented our own common religion, that has

existed since we were under the Ottoman rule, something that makes the soul of every Albanian

burn when they hear about it. One of our most famous poets called Pashko Vasa finally found a

name for it in the 19th century and called it ‘Albanianism.’ This religion that we ‘invented’ has its

foundations in the pride we have in being Albanians, in the love we have for our country and in the

struggle to make it better.

It is where we base our way of living. And as Pashko Vasa said, ‘The faith of the Albanian is

Albanianism’.

�XI

Is Religion Slavery or Freedom in the end? by Celia Ho

According to our human nature, freedom is something that we have been endlessly longing and

searching for. It is the desired satisfaction of thinking and acting without any restraint, no

matter if it is fear, guilt, or any rule. Religions, however, set up all kinds of moral theories to

attach ‘moral qualifiers’, like ‘good' and ‘evil', to judge our behavior and thoughts. When the

free will to do what we desire is abridged in the face of religions, we start to doubt if they are

pure slavery after all. Nevertheless, what if moral rules in religions actually enable us to reach

a deeper level of freedom after all those restraints?

If you have ever felt guilty before, then you can probably guess what I’m going to talk about - the

freedom of having a clear conscience, or a less guilty conscience, that comes after following

moral rules. What most religions typically advocate is the long-term pleasure of having the

freedom of mind due to the satisfaction of being moral, instead of having short-term pleasure

that involves ‘evil’ motives or behavior, which then bring about long-term constraints like tragic

consequences, self-punishment, and fear of encountering moral judgements etc. In short,

achieving freedom in religions, is a choice between the fear of temporary self-control, and the

fear of persistent guilt; the impure pleasure at the moment, and the certain, lasting pleasure of a

clear conscience.

Some may argue that religions are not only over-demanding in terms of morality, but also

unnecessary. For example, existing laws and regulations also prevent people from wrongdoings

and therefore, provide the guilt-free freedom that religions and their moral rules offer, with

relatively fewer restrictions (at least the morality of thoughts is not taken into account). 

Two of the reasons for the creation of religions and their continued existence nowadays, are

humans’ guilt and their thirst to be forgiven. Religions provide a platform for mankind to

recognize their faults, to be forgiven by the God whom they believe in, to break free from the

punishment of conscience, and to learn how to maintain the peace of conscience by following a

particular set of principles. In comparison, laws and regulations are not only less strict in �XII

preventing people to lose their clear conscience (and therefore, freedom), but also much more

inferior in allowing guilty people regain it. Being put into jail or paying an enormous amount of

charge only expresses justice, not forgiveness. If penalties/punishments were effective in

assuaging the agonizing guilt, people would not have suffered from the ever going cycle of guilty

self-punishment. Hence, religions and their moral rules are irreplaceable and necessary when it

comes to providing this profound level of freedom, free from the captivity of guilt.

The main reason for people deeming religions as slavery is the difference in our values; when they

do not agree with or understand why it is morally required to do or not to do something in a

religion, they feel the pressure to obey without questioning. This is the area where the role of

slavery in religions is open to debate, as religions differ from one another in many ways and

generalization of religions should not take place here, especially when it comes to extreme cases

where the religion punishes rule-breakers in a way that offends basic human rights. However,

there is a point worth looking close upon.

Slavery of religions somehow depends on the level of your belief in the certainty of

condemnation/punishment that is going to happen to you due to your ‘evil’ thoughts or behavior.

For instance, if you do not believe in the Judgement Day afterlife, then you will be free from the

‘slavery of religion’. Or, if you do not believe that your behavior is wrong, you carry no guilt,

and you in no sense agree with/believe in the reliability of the moral rules of the religion, you

will then be free from not only the ‘slavery of religion’, but also your own conscience.

For religions that promote the good side of humanity, for example, altruism, patience, honesty,

love, generosity etc., they, at the same time, guide believers to enjoy the freedom of living

without guilt but with forgiveness, which has already, in folds, compensated the restrictions of

freedom that moral rules require. In spite of the fact that slavery in some religions is not

impossible, given that slavery has been happening all around the world, in different industries,

since ancient times, most religions do deserve a chance to be deliberately thought over on

whether they are bringing us slavery or freedom in the end.

�XIII

A spaced out God

By Mikita Hanets

I would like to use this publication as an opportunity to share my recent thoughts with regard to

the notion of God in most fundamental monotheisms in the world. Nietzsche said, “It is my

ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.” I believe it is my ambition to

pretend to be like Nietzsche, so I will be brief and concise. I will use the example of Christianity

as a monotheistic religion since I am more familiar with it. In Christianity God is perceived as an

eternal, everlasting, universal being “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the

whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”(Psalm 90:2). In Hebrew, God is

referred to as “El Olam”. “El” means God and in usage with other words exposes different

qualities of “an object of theistic belief”. “Olam” is literally translated as “forever, universe,

everlasting time and space, perpetual”, therefore the phrase, which is commonly used in English as

“The Eternal God” has numerous connotations. One of the most fascinating features of this

notion of God in the nature of time and space. I would like to illustrate my thoughts about it

with a geometrical scheme:

The straight line G represents the eternal timeline of God, which does not have a beginning and

does not have an end.

The segment H represents life of a human, which starts with a birth and ends with a death.

(Unearthly life is not considered, since in any case according to Abrahamic religions life of a

human being has a commencement.)

�XIV

Perpendiculars 1, 2, 3 used symbolically to demonstrate a hypothetical connection between God

and a human during the lifetime. Whether or not connections exist is not important for the

development of an argument.

If the notion of God eternal in time and space is taken into account, then we have to admit that

God experiences time differently. Saint Peter says in the Bible, “With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” However, it is probably the case that God

does not experience time chronologically. Since God does not have a beginning and does not have

an end, it implies absence of time references for him. Moreover, the eternal and not time-limited

or chronological nature of God suggests that he is equally present in the past, in the future and

in the present at the same time. Therefore, if an infinite number of points make up a straight line G,

God is present at every point of this timeline. At the same time, humans do experience time

chronologically. Knowledge that we have a beginning and an end sets a time reference.

Therefore, the segment H consists of a limited number of points. Moreover, our conciseness is

present at one certain point of the timeline, which we define as the present. Now let us imagine

that a human establishes a contact with God through a prayer experience. A perpendicular “2”

connects a segment H and a straight line G. It means that a human whose conciseness is at that

point in the present addresses God. However, since God is equally present at any point of the

straight line G due to the nature of El Olam, for him the contacts established by the human at

different stages of human’s life (perpendicular lines “1”, “2” and “3”) are happening at the same

time. Hence, there are two hypotheses, which could be based on the conclusion.

1. Future is predetermined and there is no free will.

The presence of God at every point of the straight line G suggests that the future already

exists as well as the past. A hypothetical contact established in the future (perpendicular

“3”) is already happening, due to the existence of God at that point. This however contradicts

the concept of freedom in Christianity. A free will is one of the fundamental values of

Christianity. If the Fall is often explained by Christian theologians as a possibility for a

human being to exercise the right of freedom, the notion of predetermined future makes us

question if the God capable of connivance or deceiving is all-loving.

2. There are multiple universes in which events repeat continuously.

�XV

Since God is present at every point of the straight line G and God is eternal, God experiences

imaginary perpendiculars or each point of the segment H repeatedly. While humans experience

only one point due to the conciseness being only in the present.

Mikita Hanets

Duino,

April 2015

P.S.

“Against the censurers of brevity. - Something said briefly can be the fruit of much long thought:

but the reader who is a novice in this field, and has as yet reflected on it not at all, sees in

everything said briefly something embryonic, not without censuring the author for having served

him up such immature and unripened fare.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

(ho-ho)

�XVI

The Big Sales

by Niccolo Piras

To be read listening to “The Clash-Lost in the supermarket”

I saw a God yesterday, it was a 3x2 at the supermarket.

There was also a huge crowd of people going to make the big buy of Gods for the next centuries.

I arrived late and I couldn’t find any.

I mean, there were some, but I didn’t want to spend all my morality for some that weren’t worth for.

On my morality card I had only 500 tears.

The first one was cheap, 100 tears, but was meant to last only for 20 years- and then there would pretty much be an Apocalypse (caused by him). It didn’t even look that good. It reminded me of a dwarf, with that ugly grin and the short legs. When I took it in my hands, it started loosing his hair.

I put it back, and afterwards a guy with fake expensive clothes and a suspicious look took it. Good for him.

Then, there was another one, good looking, pretty thick. On the instructions I read “Use only at night. Blame ten times a day, and then pray. CAUTION: it can get fat and then explode, leaving you alone. Buy only if you have one in stock”.

Better nope. The same guy also took that one. Lucky him.

I started feeling better because I was making the right choices. Better without a God than with a bad one!

Then there was the last God. Bad looking, worse even than the first one. Extremely cheap. “It fits for every occasion” said the label, “This product isn’t tested yet, be the first one”.

Then I left the supermarket, and I felt alone. Now it got closed.

Sad that I, as a worker in the factory of Gods, don’t have even a bonus for buying some.

�XVII

Islam and the new Middle East

By Hamza Khaleel

What is the first thing you think of when you hear “The Middle East”? Money? Oil? People riding

on camels? Osama Bin Laden? The Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Terrorism? ISIS? Islam? Oil maybe?

There are many things which people associate with the term “The Middle East”, a term politicians

created to describe the place where the 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)

originated from. It is the place which contains the majority of the “Black Gold” that we use to

fuel our cars, factories and almost everything in everyday life. The Middle East also happens to

be that part of land and sea, which never fails to appear on the news.

What do we read about the Middle East these days? ISIS killing an American journalist.

Hezbollah (a Lebanese armed organization which practically controls Lebanon) sends more

troops to fight with Bashar Al-Asad Against The Syrians. The Iranian-Saudi relations are

tensioning more and more after Iran provided the Huthi in Yemen with developed arms.

Practically, from 1948 till 2011, the Middle East was known with two Ethnic groups fighting

over a land some call Palestine, and others call Israel. In 2011, things changed and people decided

to tear every good image others have about Islam into tiny pieces…

First we have to know what important thing: THIS IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT POLITICAL.

You have a religion called Islam, which over 1.3 Billion people follow and believe in. Muslims

separate themselves into two groups: Sunnis and Shiites. The message is the same in both sectors,

but they had a small argument 1400 years ago and they chose to distinguish one from the other.

Saudi Arabia is considered as the head of Sunnis, and Iran is considered as the head of Shiites.

Here is where we have the problem: NONE OF THEM REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT ISLAM IS

ABOUT.

They turned Islam into a political game. Iran, wanting one day to bring back the Persian Empire,

has been placing their hand over various Arabic countries for years. Syria, a country which has a

majority of Sunnis, had found itself ruled by Shiites for about 40 years now. Lebanon, a country

in which Muslims and Christians co-exist perfectly, are actually ruled by the Shiite group

Hezbollah. Yemen, that small country which has one of the most important trade straits in the

world, has been seeing the rise of Huthi (a part of Shiites) to power. A lot more examples are

present in Iran’s constant funding of those people with the aim of bringing the Persian Empire’s

�XVIII

dream close to reality. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, consists of these rich rulers, who claim

to know Islam, when all they have cared about for the past 60 years are food and money.

You have these two sides, and you have the normal Muslims, who don’t give themselves names such

as Sunni or Shiites. Does really matter to us if some of us don’t like two men who were the

successors of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]? We never cared, and we learned to co-exist

everywhere, but Iran never stopped chasing its dream, and Saudi Arabia never stopped looking

away of what really matters in life instead of focusing on their wealth.

2011 came..

Tunisia, Egypt and Libya finished their successful revolutions to take down the regime. Souls

were lost, but they stayed strong. Later on that year, the Syrians woke up to know that three

children in the countryside lost their reproductive organs after the Syrian Army caught them

writing “The people want to take down the regime”. That was the call for a revolution. Iran

knew that Bashar AlAsad’s existence in the territory meant the existence of the Persian influence

there, so they along side Hezbollah, supported him (and still are) with everything they’ve got.

Bashar chose to kill his people. Sunni, Shiite or a Christian, whoever opposed him ended up dead.

Yemen’s share of the Arab Spring had to come, and again, many souls were lost. After the former

president fled to Saudi Arabia for a safe haven, the Huthi started, with time, taking over various

parts of Yemen.

The situation got really messed up everywhere, so I will summarize everything with these points:

Syria and Iraq witnessed the destruction of ISIS, a terrorist group which say they’re Sunni. This

caused Syria having a battle between in many fronts, but mainly Bashar’s army (supported by Iran

and Hezbollah), The Syrian Free Army, (which represents the people and is fighting for a new

Syria, and ISIS). Iraq mainly has ISIS, who are taking over a big part of the country, The Kurds

and the people, who are fighting for Iraq’s freedom, and the Iranian troops who entered Iraq with

the claim that they’re helping it to restore its lands.

The US, UK and many international forces aligned themselves with some Arabic countries to start

air strikes against ISIS.

In Yemen, the Huthi took over the capital and took down the government in early 2015. As a

consequence, Saudi Arabia enhanced some Arabic countries to attack the Huthi. Saudi Arabia

claims that if the Huthi expand, then they will enter their country and with the help of Iran,

they will take over.

�XIX

The Kurdish army (representing the Iraqi army) is fighting ISIS really hard with the help of the

Iranian forces, but with each day that passes by, the Iranian forces are taking control over many

areas in Iraq.

And the story goes on. On one hand people are fighting for freedom, and on the other they are

dying because it is not politically suitable for the puppets that Iran has placed over the Arab

World, to move anywhere. ISIS is fighting in the name of Islam, and Iran is supporting the Shiites in

the name of Ali. Nothing is happening, and I mean nothing.But blood is being shed everywhere

anyway.

All of the unknown souls we’ve lost and will continue to lose for the next few years, is because

of two sides wanting to make politics interfere into a religion which calls for peace. People have

coexisted for hundreds of years, and have learned to put their differences aside, whether they

were Sunni, Shiites or Christians, only to be killed now because some leaders want to keep their

seats. That is the story of the land where Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad -may peace be upon them

all- came to unite people and teach people the importance of peace. The scene is blurry and no one

really knows what is happening. Will this end soon? No. This war will stay, and even if it ends, the

Middle East will never be the same. The Middle East moved from Arabs vs Israelis, to Arabs vs

Arabs vs Kurds vs Persians.

Are Shiites to blame for all of this? No. Are Sunnis to blame for this destruction? No. Then, is

Islam to blame? Hell no. Who is to blame then?

Just blame the greed we human beings have. Blame the love for money and power. Blame the

ignorance of people. Blame anyone and everyone for the hideous events we see all over the world,

but don’t you think about blaming any of the religions, because they were all found to guide us to

peace and love, not war and blood.

The new Middle East is a place where Palestinians and Israelis seem to be the only people seeking a

peaceful agreement. What a plot twist, right?

*Points of view differ when we look at any event happening around us, but what doesn’t change is

the fact that every day, whether in the Middle East, Africa or anywhere in the world, people are

dying because of our ignorance. These people are represented as numbers in the news and will

always remain nameless to us. Let’s never forget those who don’t make it to the news, because

they are the victims of what we’re doing.

�XX

What is God if not my hoax?

By Andrej Antonič

What is god if not my hoax?

A deranged description of my atonement: The

clairvoyance of suspected states, descriptive

notions of vague serenity...

deliberately observant

I approach the senseless dialectics of beliefs.

Considering the condescending pronounced rightful

way, I stir my will and drive astray.

Colonise my figure, inject in me your virus, prove the professed wisdom...

I smite the trail of your confidence:

configure my wrath, as imposture draws the outline of your nature,

crudely covering your skin, god.

Where is your god? I ask the weightless of doubt..

Where do the sounds of your prayers dissolve?

What power insists on your condition, to allow the

intellect in such pale endeavours of slight despair? Pity

is my instrument for disclosing the formulated premise.

Foretold witness of the real, lose your sight

within the scent of thy perception..

Cleanse the fear of unknown deliverance and consult the

questions. Penetrate the icy membrane of thy visions, for the

gyre of ways to twirl thy self.

Distance, unhandled hope for the static

light; burn the stagnant waters of clarity

�XXI

and waste, waste it’s certainty, evict the

comfort: perish in flaming water.

Untouched fragments of a shattered imaginary

remain, circuitously.. The colours of an endless

door, an open theatre: curtains that never come

together. Passions bloom as the interval of a

trailed reason evaporates.

You are left within your chaos...

�XXII

A Cosmologists View

By Valeria Grisoni

About the philosophy question... Hmm.. There is so much to say about this subject.

I think that for a scientist, and in particular for a cosmologist, the

idea of God, and in particular the idea of a creator, is absurd.

Quoting Stephen Hawking:

"When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that

the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big

bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like

asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it

doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are

each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest

explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no

one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There

is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life

to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am

extremely grateful.”

From a philosophical point of view, what I find illuminating are the

ideas of Feuerbach about religion; religion is simply the projection

of human nature onto an illusory transcendent plan. It is not god who

created human beings in his image, but human beings who create god in

their images. In conclusion, for Feuerbach god is man’s awareness of

himself as a species being. (His though comes from Hegel’s

Phenomenology of Spirit.)

These are the ideas of Feuerbach, but there are many other philosphers

who wrote about this subject.

�XXIII

NOTE from editor: Valeria is a cosmology student in the University of Trieste, and she is open to

continue the debate about Philosophy of Religion, and therefore if any reader desires to pose

questions to Valeria can do so through one of the editor’s of the magazine.

�XXIV

The Quest: on Scientology

By Celine Lau

By “Have you ever heard of L.Ron Hubbard?”

Walking down the train station you say no,

Though the answer they already know,

With flyers and faith in their hands,

This army of science fiction believers

Woo you with a thousand unknowns,

Welcome you to the room of infinite hope

And tell you the story of a story teller:

L. Ron Hubbard, the man with God’s pen hidden in his collar,

Who unlocks your immortal being,

Who shows you the way to your true nature,

Who guides you to an infinite self,

Even though he understands,

The fastest way to a brighter future

Is to give out free personality tests

And start a religion of fictional lecture

But no matter how big the chapel

Or how loud the screaming pupils,

This religion of Scientology,

Will never overshadow the fear of the truthful’s,

Who understands the ritual

Of writing a check while chanting a prayer,

And taking pictures of the children of the escaped followers, �XXV

Placing them in mailboxes

Hoping that their threats get delivered

Amid how much you have studied your greater potential,

You will never have a clue

About the truth on the flying banner

“Know yourself. Know life.”

Because the facts that you think you know

Are just one man’s illusions of You

�XXVI

Religion – The Great Divider Or A Unifier?

By Maja Cernja

Since the rise of civilizations until now, the 21st century, men have had the need to believe in

something greater than them. In the beginnings they created stories, or as we now call them

myths, in order to come up with explanations for all sorts of forces and events whose origin was

beyond their knowledge. Each civilization, from the Mesopotamians to ancient Greeks, had its

own system of beliefs which usually consisted of many different goods and myths. And that

seemed to work fine, until large empires started clashing and imposing their system of beliefs –

religion on inferior cultures. The rise of monotheistic religions in particular led to lots of wars

and divisions, since each was trying to prove that their god is “the right one”. But don’t all

religions maybe believe in the same god? Perhaps they are just calling him different names,

celebrating him in different ways just because of diverse cultural and historical backgrounds?

On one hand, religion seems to unite people. For example, you meet someone of your religion

in an unexpected place and you suddenly start bonding. Also when a believer goes to church, a

mosque or a temple and prays to the same divinity as all the other people there he gets a sense of

belonging. It is this sense of belonging, being a part of a group that we all search no matter how

independent and unique individuals each of us are, and religion therefore is a great provider of

this feeling. It is a safe asylum that enables us to find others who share at least some of our

values and views on life. Even the collision of different religions can be a unifying experience. We

can see the similarities and difference between various religions and realise how much they have in

common. Most of religions share a very similar moral code, way of praying and worship.

On the other hand, problems arise when one becomes blind to the many connections and

similarities religions have with each other and considers only his religion as the true one and

starts to take all the sacred texts connected to it very seriously and interprets them literarily.

It is then when people try to impose their religion as the superior one and begin to take religion in

a (too) serious manner rather then looking at it as wonderful and spiritual phenomena that

provides people with the feelings of safety, purpose and belonging. This has been a cause of many

wars in our history, and unfortunately it still is, which is, if we think about it, very ironic since

�XXVII

most of the religions promote peace, love and helping out each other and are strongly opposed to

inflicting harm on others.

If there was no religion, we could argue that there would be less (religious) wars and

conflicts in our world and perhaps there would be less division amongst certain cultures, but on

the other side we would lose a lot of culture, artworks, diversity and all the positive influences

religion and many religious figures had. In the end, religion probably wouldn’t cause so many

problems if we were to simply look at it from a different perspective – as a product of our eternal

desire and hope that there is something greater then ourselves, something that we’ll one day

truly give a meaning to our lives.

�XXVIII

Marcelo’s musings by Marcelo Bertorelli

The Mantis Shrimp, a tropical shallow water shrimp, is quite an interesting creature. For starters,

it is one of the deadliest predators on earth: it is able to destroy reinforced aquarium glass with a

single blow of its claw-like appendages. While usually found at about 10cm, it can grow to 30 cm

easily (the largest one found is 46 cm long). Apart from that, it can come into a variety of beautiful

rainbow colours. My favourite feature, though, it’s that while humans have only 3 colour-

receptive cones in our eyes; the ones that let us see Red, Blue, Yellow and all the colours we know

which are formed from those, the Mantis shrimp has Sixteen different colour-receptive cones in its

eyes.

That means that everything we see: a Rainbow, Van Gogh’s Paintings, those weird colourful images

your hippie friends share on Facebook; All of those are formed from only 3 colours combined in

different ways. Keeping that in mind, just imagine how vast and incredible their perception must be,

how much they see that we cannot. What could they see in a sunset? In “The Starry Night”?

Putting open-mouthed awe to one side for a moment, the fact that this shrimp can perceive so much

more colours in spectrums we cannot even begin to comprehend, raises the question: How limited is

our perception?

Think about it. If we manipulate paint and sit fascinated at the beauty of colours in nature with

only 3 colour sensitive cones, then with how many colours do we interact without even knowing?

Even today, you could have accidentally made beautiful works of art in colours you never even

imagined could exist, and you can never see them because our bodies just don’t have the biological

devices to perceive it.

Ah, but this is a Philosophy of Religion edition. What has shrimps and colours we can’t see have to

do with all of that? Well, if there is so much we cannot begin to comprehend only in terms of

�XXIX

colour, then how many forces outside of our perception are acting upon us right now? Just how

limited is our understanding of what happens around us?

Precisely that knowledge of how limited our perception is, makes it impossible for me to be able to

say that I am an “Atheist”. With so much we cannot comprehend, how can we affirm so adamantly

that there is no external beings, divine or otherwise, influencing our lives, interacting with us on a

daily bases, without us knowing? To believe that we have such a complete and perfect

understanding of existence with our very limited perception of reality is almost egocentric(??)

�XXX

Credits and Acknowledgments

The Philosophy Magazine Team is: Rina Cakrani (editor) Marcelo Bertorelli Atharv Diman Celia Ho Ellen Henricson Celine Tung

Contributions: Dr. Paul Stachowiak Anisa Bek Hamza Khaleel Nataly Sarahneh Andrej Antonic Mikita Hanets Claire Franco Maja Cernja Niccolo Piras Valeria Grisoni

Special thanks to: Dr. Paul Stachowiak Natay Sarahneh for the cover Comrade Carlos Malache for the guidance and inspiration (* the magazine is created on the basis of Horror Vacui Philosophy Magazine)

�XXXI

Memorabilia Quran:

Surat Al-'An`ām (The Cattle)

Say (O Muhammad PBUH): “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: Join not

anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your parents; kill not your children because

of poverty - We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawâhish (shameful

sins, illegal sexual intercourse,) whether committed openly or secretly, And do not kill the soul

which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by way of justice and law. This has He instructed

you that you may use reason.”[6:151] And come not near to the orphan's property, except to

improve it, until he (or she) reaches maturity. And give full measure and weight in justice. We do

not charge any soul except [with that within] its capacity. And when you testify, be just, even if [it

concerns] a near relative. And fulfill the covenant of Allah . This has He instructed you that

you may remember. [6:152] And, [moreover], this (i.e. Allah's Commandments mentioned in the

above two Verses 151 and 152) is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow

[other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may

become righteous. [6:153]

ا ( ول ت قــربـوا مــال الـيتيم إل بــلت هــي أحـــسن حـــت ي

ب لــغ أشـــــده وأوفــوا الــكيل واملــيزان بلقســـــط ل نــكل ف ن فـــسا إل وســـــعها وإذا ق لـــتم فـــاعـــدلـــوا ولـــو كـــان ذا ق رب ـــــــــــــاكـــــــــــم بــــــــــه لــــــــــعــلـكــم ـــــــــل أوفــــــــــوا ذلــــــــــكــم وصـ وبـعـهـــــــــــد الـ

قـــل ت عـــالـــوا أتـــل مـــا حــــرم ربـــكم عـــليكم أل تشـــــرك وا بـــه شي ئا وبلوالدين إحسان ول ت قت لو

ــهم ول ت قـــربـــوا ـن ن رزقـــكم وإيـ ـ أولـــدكــــم مـــن إمـــل ق نالفواحش ما ظهر من ها وما بطن

١٥١

ل إل بـل ق ذلـكم ول ت قـت لـوا الـن فـس الـت حـــرم الـاكم به لعلكم ت عقلون ) وص

�XXXII

ذا صراطي مستقيما فاتبعوه ول ت رون )١٥١( وأن ه تذكـــــاكــم بـه ـــبل ف ت فـرق بـكم عــن ســــبيله ذ لـكم وصـ تـبعوا السـ

لعلكم ت ت قون )١٥١( Bible: 1 Corinthians 13

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong

or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all

knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I

give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have

love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not

proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no

record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always

protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are

prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is

knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when

completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I

thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood

behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I

know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain:

faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

13 si linguis hominum loquar et angelorum caritatem autem non habeam factus sum velut aes sonans

aut cymbalum tinniens

2. et si habuero prophetiam et noverim mysteria omnia et omnem scientiam et habuero omnem fidem

ita ut montes transferam caritatem autem non habuero nihil sum

3. et si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas et si tradidero corpus meum ut ardeam

caritatem autem non habuero nihil mihi prodest

4. caritas patiens est benigna est caritas non aemulatur non agit perperam non inflatur

5. non est ambitiosa non quaerit quae sua sunt non inritatur non cogitat malum

6. non gaudet super iniquitatem congaudet autem veritati �XXXIII

7. omnia suffert omnia credit omnia sperat omnia sustinet

8. caritas numquam excidit sive prophetiae evacuabuntur sive linguae cessabunt sive scientia

destruetur

9. ex parte enim cognoscimus et ex parte prophetamus

10.cum autem venerit quod perfectum est evacuabitur quod ex parte est

11.cum essem parvulus loquebar ut parvulus sapiebam ut parvulus cogitabam ut parvulus quando

factus sum vir evacuavi quae erant parvuli

12.videmus nunc per speculum in enigmate tunc autem facie ad faciem nunc cognosco ex parte tunc

autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum

13.nunc autem manet fides spes caritas tria haec maior autem his est caritas

�XXXIV

!

�XXXV

�XXXVI

�XXXVII

November ISSUE 1