Some questions about religion

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I'm still managing to keep up a weekly release of something. Although allhave been released on other sites before. Still here goes.

Questions about religion
By: Rakuen Growlithe

Do you ever think about God and religion? I did a lot and I still do fairly often. Most of the time was to try and arrange things that I felt and knew; some of which were considered wrong and I tried to find out why. Pretty much after all my thinking I had to fall back on my scientific training. Pretty much don’t believe something without proof. And when I thought about it I couldn’t find much proof for religion and so I had no choice but to reject it. Of course that still left me with the problem of God. Now there are a few ideas of God, the one I know best being the Christian concept of God. Working with that I decided if God didn’t want you to find him you wouldn’t be able to. So there would be no way to prove if God exists, leading me to become agnostic.

During my thinking obviously a lot of ideas went through my head and I want to talk about some here and now, just to get them out and have other people think about them.

Firstly I had to give up on religion due to a lack of evidence for it. (Mostly from a Christian perspective but I’m sure it applies to almost everything.) If you accept it through faith, it’s in the absence of evidence, other than some old book that isn’t exactly reliable or backed up by anything. So how come people insist on evidence for other things? I remember seeing people have to swear on the bible when they went to court on TV. I don’t know if they still do that but it of course brings a few questions to mind. What if you’re an atheist? Then you can’t exactly swear on anything can you? Also assuming you’re all then Christian and put the fate of your very soul in something based only on faith why do you need evidence for something as trivial as a charge of drunk driving? Why can’t you go in and say to the judge, “I believe and have faith that he is guilty!” and have him convicted on that? Are a few years more important than your very soul?

Related to that are the laws themselves. Things like right and wrong and good and evil are taught to children from a young age but not the reasoning behind it. Why is it wrong to kill someone? You can’t prove it’s wrong to do something by experimentation. The only way is to accept some sort of divine commandment. Of course to do that you would have to prove the entire religion is true and of course if that had happened there would only be one religion. Although, since people choose religion on faith, they could just ignore every piece of evidence just because it doesn’t agree with their views. Now I’m not saying you should randomly kill or anything but that you shouldn’t think in concepts like good and evil.

I’m all for tolerance of other people’s views, at least as long as they aren’t detrimental to others, so I can agree that people of different religions should get on peacefully. It then occurred to me that there’s a problem in the logic inherent in such an arrangement. For a large majority of religions the teachings say that unless you accept that religion you will receive some sort of punishment in the afterlife. With that most also preach compassion and mercy. Now look at this example. If you are watching the demolition of a large building and you see a young child running towards the building, what will you do? Hopefully you’d stop the child so they don’t run inside and get killed as it collapses. That’s compassion. Now if you believe in your religion you must believe that the other religions are wrong, otherwise you would have joined them or started some multi-theistic sort of thing. Since people not in your religion are, in your view, going to be punished in the afterlife how can, for arguments sake, a Christian just let a Muslim child practice their religion? You must see that child as damning herself to hell. This especially is odd in mixed-religion families. You wouldn’t send your child to a paedophile so why watch them descend into an eternity of torment?

[Denim]

You take a very bleak outlook, I'm sad to say. You work under the assumption that all those who practice religion should practice it as the holy scriptures say, that they should be out killing people in the name of their God.

We know that this is only true for a very limited few. It's not the behaviour of the majority, but the failings of the minorities to express empathy is what creates these circumstances. Historically speaking religion is merely a vessel for the intent of man, not God.

Regardless of the source, would you prefer if you were allowed to kill to discover that your actions hurt the person you killed and the people who were fond of them? Is it really necessary to question that some things, no matter how virally, memetically revolting need to be taught? Do you really need to a reason why you shouldn't kill? You'll learn the reason as you grow, but death is a concept difficult to grasp for some, particularly children.

God did not tell the Christians to invade the holy land. Popes and kings did that, claiming they were the physical manifestations of God. Religion itself is not the means, merely the delivery method for the more sinister intentions of human nature itself, cuts and thrusts for power driven by greed. And there again, the field is pretty narrow as regards the majority versus the minority.

I quite like religion, from a purely academic perspective, because if you read it in context it makes sense. Some of the more superfluous and really out there passages are jarring on the modern understanding of humanity, but they hark back to a time when only scholars and royalty could read, the word was preached and not read by the individual. You were told that you'd burn in Hell and you were manipulated by someone you were told was the embodiment of the great, big head in the sky. And if you didn't do what your king said you were a bad, bad man...

Let me put this into perspective. Did George W Bush really invade Iraq to liberate the people? He used the word 'crusade' many times in his speeches, a word that implies there was some form of religious undertone to his intent. So let me ask you this. Did God tell George W Bush to invade?

You see, to me it's more than literal interpretation. It has to do with personal interpretation and the modern understandings we have of why these texts were written, their purpose and their abuse. I firmly believe that a child raised without religion, raised in a healthy environment with a firm grounding in empathy, compassion and tolerance, will relate to a child brought up in a religious environment where the variables were the same with no exceptions and no difficulty.

I don't see any real problem with religion. The abolition thereof seems a step too far. Religion, as I've seen it for most of my life, is, and please don't take this the wrong way, a crutch. It is the promise of something more, an incentive to lead a good life free of vice and evil; it is the answer for billions of people to the question of the purpose of their existence. They need this and who are we to disagree?

The purpose of religion today is very, very different to it's intended purpose when the holy scriptures were written. As a species we've evolved to a heightened state of awareness, we question our bodies, our lives, the lives or others, all of these wrapped in guises of purpose and intent. We search for meaning, we strive to understand that which needn't be comprehended to begin with. We are a relatively young species considering the scientific age of the planet and the universe we call home. In our curiosity we falter as a child does, but there isn't a guiding hand, that of a parent or religion, to show us where our potential will lead. You see, we got smarter, but we picked up the ball of religion and ran with it.

As far back as you can go in our short history you'll see the same thing. Man, staring up at the stars, wondering what's out there. And to many God is the answer. They affirm their belief in Him, they devote their lives to Him and they call out to Him. He is their shield, their crutch, their reason and purpose. As we believe in science to be the truth they believe in Him as their truth, but with the aid of modern consciousness their belief is peppered with the humaneness and kindness of a species that is moving into another great state of being. Your average Christian or Muslim or Jew couldn't give a rat's ass about killing in the name of his God.

Just to tail this off I'd like to mention that I've been very lucky, having grown up in a multi-ethnic, multi-theistic environment all my life. I've met Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, Wiccans, Pagans, Mormons, Catholics... It goes on and on. And everytime I meet someone who is clear in their religious affirmation I approach them with the curiosity of a child that doesn't know a thing about their religion. I appreciate the unique interpretations I hear from every individual as to why they believe and, hopefully, they appreciate my scientific, Atheist insights into our existence.

With the discovery of zero we allowed ourselves a unique privilege. Whatever you believe, be it in God, cosmic energy, quantum mechanics or nothing (represented as zero for argument's sake) you create your own reason and purpose.

Any beliefe, or the lack of any, does not make us different. It makes us the same.

Any type of affirmation, even that of 'nothing', solidifies our ability to perceive and to interpret our surroundings. We are all of the same vein and we all seek the same thing.

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

[Keita Haruka]

Mmm. A very interesting point of view, Denim. It makes a lot of sense in a way. One point where I feel I may have a contribution to make is in the one about religion being a "crutch".

This implies that any individual human requires belief in something in order to function normally. Without going into what it means to be normal (dear gods, I'd much rather not open that can of worms), I don't really see spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) as something that contributes to correct functioning. Religion doesn't shape your morality, nor does it define you as a person. To slightly alter an old cliche "The religion does not make the man". I think it's the other way around (which I think was one of the points you made). Every individual human has an intrinsic sense of what is right and wrong, and the way you are raised as well as the influence of the world on you will contribute to that sense of morality and ethics. So will your own personality, of course. Which does tend to support Sir Burton's point of view.

That said, I do not think that all religions are necessarily "human constructs", or the result of madness or wishful thinking or "substance abuse" as it were. I do think that there's a grain of truth in all of them. The one you ultimately choose is a reflection of those inner truths that you find. In essence, something within yourself finds common ground with the world outside.

The problem is that in monotheistic faiths especially, the relgion is presented as "the whole truth, the only truth"...which just isn't true. The assumption of Monotheism is that it is applicable to everyone. This isn't true either. And yet people believe that, and blindly try to follow it, try to fit themselves into that mould when it simply doesn't fit them. This in my main objection to monotheism. That is where fundamentalism starts. It is inherent in the religion because it requires an adherent to conform, which can and has led to all sorts of psychological problems. Whether self-imposed or imposed by other "of the faithful", it is irrelevant.

That is not to say that even monotheism doesn't have those grains of truth in them. I think there's a lot to be said for the way Christ (whether he lived or not) lived his life, and his message is one of the most uplifting I've come across. The Koran too has its share of pearls.

The question whether these "grains of truth" are universal and applicable to every species that exists here on earth (and maybe even out there in the deep outer reaches of space, if such exist) can simply not be proven scientifically. It can, however, be felt in our common humanity. (Yes, Denim, I know I haven't yet said anything that contradicted your point of view. I'm getting to it. )

Polytheistic faiths on the other hand have a completely different view of the world. Where monotheism sees humanity as "god's creation, his latest and greatest", most polytheistic systems of belief allow for alternative explanations, including scientific views such as evolution. Where monotheism requires adherents to accept, most polytheisms teaches you to question, to put it to the test and see for yourself, and if you find something better, to express that.

For example, the Wiccan rede "An it harm none, do as will", puts ultimate responsibility on you, the adherent. You and you alone get to choose what is and is not harmful, and it allows you to express your own will, or not, as you choose. Wiccan rituals and spells can be altered at will to fit in with your circumstances, so if you find that burning rosemary works better than burning sage, then just use sage. If you feel you don't have that much in common with Artemis, then call on Athena, or Isis or Kali if you wish.

And that leads me to the point. Over the years, many of these polytheistic faiths scattered around the world have come to the same general conclusions about the nature of the universe, about how it all interconnects and about how to utilise these natural forces to achieve certain goals. For example, in Wicca you find the concept of Akasha, an all-permeating unifying force, an idea that also crops up in Sioux (American Indians) as "Wakan-Taka" and in China as "Chi". Sometimes it is personified, sometimes not. This force can be used and directed (Wiccan Magick, Chinese Feng Shui, Polynesian Reiki, and I have no idea what the Japanese and Amerindian equivalent would be) to achieve various ends, depending on how you apply it. In Wicca, it can be used to do almost anything. Reiki focusses on healing and Feng Shui on spiritual well being. Directing this power, making it flow the way you want it to depends on youself, on your views, your philosophy. But the basic "tools of the trade" is almost universal. So is the basic, grassroots level concepts involved. Does this also spring from common humanity, or is it because all these spiritualities noticed an actual, existing force, having over the years studied the same things. You don't find the same plants in China that you do in America or Hawaii, nor do you have the same religious representation and interpretation..and yet the resembalnces and claimed effects are almost identical. Same with the ancient "classical elements". The Chinese recognised 5 elements (water, fire, earth, metal, wood) while the Greeks recognised just 4 (water, fire, earth, air). The difference is philosophical. The Greeks saw metal and wood as part of the earth since earth spawned it. The Chinese thought differently...and yet when you look at it, the Greeks and the Chinese came to similar spiritual conclusions about what these elements represented. Both saw the same cycles, and attributed the same spiritual properties where their elements coincide. Wicca reaches similar conclusions, and again, so do the Native Americans. If, by "experiment and observation" you reach the same conclusion more than once, and have that same set of observations verfied independantly, is that common humanity, or one of those "truths" that I spoke about earlier?

Last point, getting back to the crutch thing...is a belief (or lack of belief) in any of this really something that helps you cope, to operate normally, or could you operate just as well without? I think it can become a crutch if you allow it to dictate to you, if you simply accept it as it is presented without first examining yourself. You and only you can know what goes on within your own soul and can determine your own morality and your own view of the universe. If you believe that everything is explainable scientifically without any ind of mysticism, then it's good and right for you to do so. You're not wrong about that. If you feel within yourself that there is more to it than what you can see and touch, then you are not wrong. Science is yet to fully explain everything and who knows what it might discover? I do however, think it is a telling point that some faiths encourage such examination, and welcomes scientific explanations for things that they've known all along. I don't see any reason why faith and science need to be mutually exclusive.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I have no intention of discussing whether religion is right or wrong and that was not my intention. I brought forward three questions and wanted to know what the reasoning of people who believe is to make them think that way, in a way that makes very little to no sense.

[Denim]

And this is a dicussion not solely geared toward glorifying your opinions :p Don't be a troll. We're discussing. Let us.

I think that was very well put, Keita

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Well my job is to keep people on topic and whether religion is right wasn't my topic. So let's discuss why people think in ways that contradict themselves. If you actually have a good enough argument my opinion could change. And if you want to discuss whether religion is right just make your own topic on it but it's going to take too much time and effort for me to do now.