Nullifying The Nullifidian
Nullifying The Nullifidian by M.B.O Owolowo
The nullifidian in this context can be appreciated as a catch-all term or symbolic representative of all those with an aversion to religion, and to some degree, God. This grouping includes atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and other forms, combinations and manifestations of supposed irreligiosity. These peculiar groupings have manifested as a religion in their own right. For example, those who say they do not believe in religion, belong to the religion of those who claim not to believe in religion. Also, those who say they do not believe in God, belong to the religion of those who claim not to believe in God. This extrapolative definition is applicable to any group of people, wherever they may exist. From the perspective of the nullifidian, the ‘religious’ dilemma becomes even more problematic particularly because of the laxity or lack of articulated set of rules. There are many human beings existing across the globe who can carry on their daily activities without the seeming need for religion. If there seems to be no apparent need for religion, typically, people can wake up in the morning, brush their teeth, have a bath, eat breakfast, wear their clothes and go to work — for those working, or go to school — for those studying, or lazing around — for nothing-doers generally. In such quotidian scenarios, however monotonous, everyone, in whatever category they may belong, returns home to sleep and do it all over again the next day. These are just some examples of daily activities, to highlight why some people question the need for religion in their lives.
The questioning of religion is often intertwined with the questioning of God, though these views are sometimes distinct. Some people may decide to reject religion and God, whilst some people may choose to reject religion, but do not necessarily reject God.
Some dictionary definitions of religion state thus: the American Heritage dictionary of the English language describes religion as, “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe”. Merriam Webster defines religion as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”, “scrupulous conformity: conscientiousness”, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith”. The Cambridge dictionary describes religion as, “the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship”, “an activity that someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly”. In view of these explanations, some of the foregoing definitions can be applied to other non-conventional groups of people, or what would not typically be classified as the conventional meaning of religion. Also, it can be argued that through certain activities, some human beings instinctively fulfil their human religious requirement. This religious requirement is fulfilled by filling the associative spiritual void with an alternative, even if done subconsciously. Anything that is valued, or any set of values that are sacred to an individual, has essentially fulfilled the role of ‘god’ to that individual. Those values could be science, tradition or ancestry or anything at all. And when there is an assemblage of such people, they are effectively a religion. There are certain scenarios where the vacuum of spirituality–cum–religion, in its traditional sense, gets fulfilled. Based on its definition, religion could be any cause or principle dedicated to with ardour. So, atheism, for example, can be considered a religion. As a similitude, there are atheists who believe in scientism and are proponents of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Based on this premise, an atheist has faith in the works of scientists who developed and propagate evolution and would also profess it accordingly.
As there is one atheist, there are also groupings of atheists who share such beliefs among themselves and with others. In this regard, those in this category are part of a belief system. Technically, atheists in this category accept this belief as fact, despite inherent infallibilities in the theory. The impediments faced in proving its veracity, affirm its theoretical nature, and one can choose to believe or reject the postulations of that belief system. This similitude is applicable to any religion, because one can choose to accept or reject any belief system. For instance, theists are sometimes challenged to prove the existence of God. In some situations, some of those who choose to believe in God might not actually be able to prove such an existence. In some other instances, theists might want to prove the existence of God to an atheist, through the utilization of the creations of God — the works of the forerunners of that belief system. Similarly, when atheists are confronted with the same challenge, they too cannot prove evolution; because neither did any of those who propounded and developed the theory of evolution actually witnessed evolution. For example, nobody witnessed man supposedly evolving from apes! Despite not witnessing the evolution of apes, those who believe in this theory present books about related studies. So, scientists, atheists, agnostics and other forms of ideologies belonging to a similar spectrum of belief, can present evolution and other theories as evidence for their belief. This is the same manner theists present their arguments from their religious viewpoint.
Theory of Natural Inclusion: I posit the Theory of Natural Inclusion as a pragmatic explication of the inclusivity process. Based on the inclusivity premise, various sets of people with shared ideologies or beliefs can be collectively grouped and identified. Furthermore, those within the same category do not necessarily have to formally identify, acknowledge or admit being part of that belief system, because their thought-processes and faith in whatever they claim to believe and profess, has naturally included them within the associative belief system.
Ironically, in the field on evolution, a prominent evolutionary biologist and proponent of the Endosymbiotic theory, Lynn Margulis, in describing Neo-Darwinism, stated that history will ultimately judge the theory “a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”.
In the world of entertainment, music has a huge followership and somewhat fulfils a ‘religious’ requirement for certain groups of people. At times, fans of music artists follow their favourite musicians around the globe, and some music festivals can be likened to a religious pilgrimage.
The energetic atmosphere at some music concerts is similar to a revered religious figure preaching from the pulpit to ardent followers. Also, calmer atmospheres with operatic and soulful music exist, with their respective fervid devotees. Interestingly, in an archived interview of American artist, Kanye West, he stated: “Hip-hop is a religion to a certain extent, and the rappers are the preachers, the music is the scriptures, you know. It’s just like church, because you go to a concert, you raise your hands in the air, you get dressed up, you sing songs, and you definitely pay some money. It’s just like church”.
Evidently, man’s gregarious inclination and the need for affiliation and affirmation is second nature. The default human tendency to seek association, particularly with the like-minded, can also lead to the congeniality of the faithless. In summary, a nullifidian — including those with similar ideologies — can claim faithlessness or irreligiosity in the conventional sense, nonetheless, a similar type of devotion, as exerted by those who are faithful or religious, is comparably expended on nullifidianism.
Note: This article is an abridged version excerpted from the book, P.R.I.S.M: Primal Religious Instruction Serving Mankind by M.B.O Owolowo.
©M.B.O 2021
