Someone wrote the other day that religion was necessary for human survival, because it offers a perspective that is both historically and practically useful to society. Someone else responded with skepticism, challenging the notion of absolutism that is inherent in religion, arguing for different ways to establish moral behavior. Someone else reacted more harshly, noting that in the case of the Abrahamic religions, the scriptures are filled with genocide, war, persecution, famine, punishment and other such unsavory treatments of the human element. The writer responded with an analogy on gold: one has to dig to find it. Someone else rightly pointed out that one needs to know what gold looks like before setting out to find it. One needs to explain to others what gold is before getting them to go look for it, or selling it to them. There was also another point to make. Gold takes effort to find. A prospector has to dig holes in the ground. He has to blow the earth up to make his way through. He has to use corrosive chemicals to extract the gold from the elements. Lots of collateral damage must be done to obtain the valuable metal. Yes, it seems that the writer was right on this one, as were the writers of the scriptures. They successfully conveyed the fact that reward comes with pain, that the world hinges on an interplay of creation and damage, construction and destruction. Why then do religions overstep their purpose and pretend theyre al about morality? Why do they supersede their ancient texts, trying to pass along over-moral messages, coming across as the saviors of mankind? They do themselves and their legacy injustice, leading people astray, offering false hope and pretending to know the way down a path they dont command, taking peoples attention away from what is really important, what they were designed to communicate: the intricate, mysterious, complex, overwhelming nature of the world, which people can negotiate when in touch with various principles, insights and affirmations. I didnt write all that. I just thought about it. The thread was busy with disagreement. The one who reacted harshly wrote back asking how any belief system could be taken seriously when its tenets amount to a zombie God who rises from the dead to ask others to eat the flesh of his father and drink his blood. The writer too offence and demanded that his views be treated with respect. This is where I intervened, offering my two cents. I wrote that therein lies the bane of religion. When confronted with fact, the religious deem it mockery. They expect their irrational points of view to be treated with the same respect as all fact is, neglecting the FACT that their claims have been shown unable to stand up to rational, realistic, or critical scrutiny. I then went on to note that religion detests the notion that its an application of faith, nothing more, much like a persons noble but partial faith in abstract or irrational processes, constructs or concepts is an application of faith, an opinion, a way of life, such as ones belief in a specific nation, a football team, the notion of love (Disney anyone?) the free economy (Disney again? maybe Scorsese?), socialism (Lenin on the rocks with a measure of Stalin and a dash of Marxsky?) etc. Where does that lead most religious people? To the inability to respond with solid arguments when their faith is revealed in (humorous, albeit caustic) light, citing the Ive-been-insulted-amendment instead of addressing the points that identify the haziness of their religious premises, such as resurrection (last time I heard, it wasnt possible, though it does make for an apt rebirth analogy, much like the Phoenix did), eating the flesh of ones father (cannibalism? belonging? not sure which - maybe a bit of both?), drinking his blood (you go to jail for this in most countries, unless were talking symbolically again), the fact that the Quran is deemed to be the literal word of God (really? you mean its a sacred text, right? No? Its the ACTUAL word of God? Get outta here!), the fact that the animal-resembling deities in Hinduism are abstractions that embody natures diversity (surely these are not actual, are they?) the confusion created by all these divergent premises (valid questions) and the fact that all this IS SYMBOLIC, despite the pious pretending its not. People who live in this day and age understand that each creed is an emblematic fable that encapsulates certain insights about the human condition, to each their own and all together (when theyre not busy fighting each other), whose merit runs as deep as literatures great sagas (Lord Of The Rings is an apt example, with an amazing story of Genesis, a war between heaven and hell etc). Yet religions somehow demand more respect than literature, as if their historicity makes them more valid somehow. Theyre not. Theyre partial, inspiring, imaginative fables -- symbols that help people through life when used in a constructive way. When they pretend to be something more, they invite upon themselves the criticism any self-important creed would. They shouldnt scream bloody murder when confronted with it, that is, at least if they want to retain the last vestiges of respect they command in this day and age. They may be able to fool their followers, but there are people watching, individuals who know a little better than to swallow fables hook, line and sinker, in light of our accumulated knowledge. It would serve religions well to keep that in mind, lest they assign themselves to the dais of the ancient religions (Ancient Egypt, Ancient Roman, Mayan and the rest of the relics) even faster than expected. Needless to say I wrote all that because the writer had failed to address the points identifying the irrationality of religion. He didnt have it in him to publicly admit that his faith, like all others, is a literary saga gone popular, which people started following back in the day, and which somehow remained popular, spreading its narrative to the point where it became universally accepted. That it has no more merit than LOTR or Star Wars other than the fact that its been turned into a culture over the centuries, and that this historicity is making its fans believe that they hold some key to the universe. He didnt dare say all that, because it would instantly negate the divinity in which he has chosen to place his faith in. Too bad. Had he done so, I would have respected his views more. I would see him as a man who dares believe in something even if he admits to it working as a symbol for him. Like the athlete who somehow thinks he connects to a force that can make him the best in the world, using said force to reach deep inside himself to exceed his limits, I would find merit in his irrational faith. But he didnt have it in him to step out of the shadow and admit that. He preferred to stay hidden inside the convenience of privilege, siting how he got offended by those who identified the fantastical elements in his doctrine. He became just another believer whose faith hinged on failing to rise above the symbolism to meet reality, on refusing to march alongside the rest of us with the assurance of a man who dares look the data in the eye while still believing what he believes in, staying true to his creed on account of his faith being so strong, so unshakeable, that it accommodates both the data of the world and irrationality of his beliefs, like our aforementioned athlete does when looking to the delusional for inspiration.
Posted on: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:06:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015