lolashookitup
2004-04-26, 04:13
Let me know what you think about this, and sorry its kind of long
A Mock Dissertation Dismantling Religion
(A feeble failure at philosophy)
Faith. Religion. They are present in every culture past or present. But what is religion? What is faith? There are some who would say religion is the message and will of a divine power, (especially if this happens to be the religion in which they believe) and if it’s not their religion it is a myth, a made up story to explain the unexplainable. Another mindset exists with regard to religion. It’s the belief that all the major religions of the world preach the same base ideas. That all religions are intrinsically the same, and all these people are actually worshipping the same divine being in different ways.
However there is an additional possibility that has not been explored, or at least had little publicizing and is rarely considered. Perhaps all these religions are seemingly the same because all religions are reactionary attempts to answer questions inherent in the human condition. Queries like, “Why live?” “What happens upon a failure to live (death)?” “What occurs after death?” “What is the nature of existence, in particular the human being?” All these questions (riddles, paradoxes even) are seemingly answered in religion. Live to serve the divine, to be a slave to an invisible taskmaster. Upon death our alleged soul which was bestowed upon us by a supreme being, departs to return to the almighty. Even our own self (soul) apparently does not belong to us. After death? In the words of Nietzsche, “a beyond invented the better to slander this life.” In other words God made a place (heaven) to negate the value of this life and existence. Nearly every religion entails some form of life after death and it is inevitably better than the life before us, with the exception of a “hell”, which one is relinquished to as a consequence for revolting against our slave master in a futile attempt for liberation.
As for the nature of the human being, we shall examine only from the viewpoint of Christianity, not all religion for the author has not the time or the knowledge to do the latter. If one examines Christianity, and accepts it as truth you find that the human being is evil and flawed with few or no redeeming qualities. Let’s present a hypothetical situation and propose a Christian might analyze it. A man murders the Dalai Lama, or the Pope. When people inquire why an omnipotent god would not interfere to prevent such a travesty, our Christian might respond with, “God awarded human beings free will.” But wait! Something incredible occurs, a miracle even. A human being risks his life, or even throws away his life to save another! To this a Christian might say, “It was by the grace of God.” Note: this event was due not to the intrinsic goodness and free will of a human but rather the will of God. Is therefore man incapable of goodness? And what of this loving god? Why does he sometimes proffer us his grace to be good, or interfere directly in the form of miracles, but will not always do so. Is such a loving god content to view destruction without feeling enough compassion to prevent it? Perhaps this god does interfere. But could it not be that he is constantly interfering, acting for his own entertainment as opposed to our benefit. Or is it that we really do have free will, in which case this god may never interfere, for whatever reason. A mother chooses to abandon her child in the cold. Yet the child is saved by the grace of God? Does this interference not negate the mother’s free will? And is free will really such an unalienable right as Christians say? For when a murderer kill his victim, does he not violate the victims will to live? Is it possible that such an omnipotent being cannot do what a flawed man can? And given such an example, can free will ever truly and completely exist? No, free will is a farce.
Unfortunately I deviate from my original intent, by singling out Christianity rather than destroying religion entirely. Previously mentioned were basic questions which religion tries to answer. But it is conceivable that this in itself points to all religion worshipping the same being. In order to demonstrate that all religion is reactionary and varying only according to its environment it is best to examine archaic religions. For our purposes, ancient Greek religion shall be used, though any archaic religion would suit this purpose. In ancient Greece religion was used to explain everything they couldn’t comprehend and didn’t have the science to explain. Mighty Zeus was the one who cast down thunderbolts. When Persephone was forced to spend time in the underworld, her mother Demeter mourned and the result was winter. And upon death, one must be buried so that he or she may be taken and dipped in Lethe (the river of forgetfulness) and then proceed to live a dull but not bad life in the underworld for all of eternity. With the modern knowledge of the present it is an easy task to dismiss these claims as absurd. To see them as stories and ideas invented to pacify the Greek’s curiosity about the reason for events in their daily lives. A modern person might even scoff at these ridiculous stories and ask, “How could they believe that?” “What proof or evidence was ever demonstrated to prove these ideas true?” A person may ask question such as these, and they are understandable questions, but in all likelihood this person is (or is acting very similar to) a hypocrite. For what proof does a Christian have that there is a heaven? What do Buddhists have to demonstrate the reality of Karma and Nirvana? And what proof do Jews have that a messiah is still on the way?
Of course a common answer is that the proof lies in sacred scripture. But are these not also manmade items? Most likely to explain what the humans of the time could not comprehend? For example the bible contains information pointing to a heaven, but also contains a story detailing the creation of the universe which today is obviously false. The creation stories today are written off as symbolic, written not as truth but to convey a meaning. But who can say that was the author’s intent? After all aren’t church theologians changing their interpretations to suit the times? For the story of creation was taught as dogmatic truth until science disproved it. Is it not more likely that the story actually was intended to detail the creation of the universe, for those who were curious about the origins of their world? And should this be true, what makes Christianity any different from the religion of the ancient Greeks? They are both simple reactions to what is unknown and rather terrifying. The terrifying aspect is death and what happens after death. This is a realm into which science can not yet transcend, and therefore religion is still used as a comfort blanket for the human race. For death is frightening, and after death is unimaginable. Most of mankind is unwilling to accept that they cannot know what post-death entails and put their hope into the fallacy called religion, which as can now be seen essentially feeds off the fear of the unknown.
When a person stumbles upon and uncovers the charade know as religion a question to a member of the faithful usually follows. The response to the inquiries about believing without proof, without fail, possesses somewhere the word faith. It is described as not having evidence but believing anyway. This logic (if it can be called that) would be outlandish if applied to any other aspect of life. Though for some reason it’s entirely acceptable for it to apply to religious beliefs. In fact not only is it possible for faith to be an acquaintance of religion but many of the religious deem it a necessity. If one were to have overt proof of a God or a heaven it would not be the same as believing without proof. This is absurd. Why believe in something without proof? Apply this logic to everyday life, (and religion seemingly should be applicable to everyday life) and see the insanity embedded in it. A man decides that he can drive ninety miles per hour on a street where the speed limit is forty-five miles per hour. He has no reason for choosing ninety, except perhaps that it is between the numbers eighty and one hundred. Soon enough he is pulled over by a police officer. When the policeman tries to write him a ticket, or even arrest the man for reckless driving he shakes his head no, and then states, “I believe ninety miles per hour is a safe speed to drive on this street.” The policeman might say, “Well what about all the scientific study and thought that has been put into determining that the safe speed is forty-five miles per hour?” The man states he will not regard this information, because he has no use for it. He has faith that ninety miles per hour is safe. By now the police officer’s jaw has dropped below his belt. He can’t believe what he is hearing. He could ask, “Well why do you believe that ninety miles per hour is safe?” The man might reply with something like, “I don’t need reasons. Reasons would undermine the concept of actually believing something.” The policeman is just astounded. Is a person actually thinking like this? He gets in his police car and simply drives away, and come Sunday he goes to church.
[This message has been edited by lolashookitup (edited 04-27-2004).]
A Mock Dissertation Dismantling Religion
(A feeble failure at philosophy)
Faith. Religion. They are present in every culture past or present. But what is religion? What is faith? There are some who would say religion is the message and will of a divine power, (especially if this happens to be the religion in which they believe) and if it’s not their religion it is a myth, a made up story to explain the unexplainable. Another mindset exists with regard to religion. It’s the belief that all the major religions of the world preach the same base ideas. That all religions are intrinsically the same, and all these people are actually worshipping the same divine being in different ways.
However there is an additional possibility that has not been explored, or at least had little publicizing and is rarely considered. Perhaps all these religions are seemingly the same because all religions are reactionary attempts to answer questions inherent in the human condition. Queries like, “Why live?” “What happens upon a failure to live (death)?” “What occurs after death?” “What is the nature of existence, in particular the human being?” All these questions (riddles, paradoxes even) are seemingly answered in religion. Live to serve the divine, to be a slave to an invisible taskmaster. Upon death our alleged soul which was bestowed upon us by a supreme being, departs to return to the almighty. Even our own self (soul) apparently does not belong to us. After death? In the words of Nietzsche, “a beyond invented the better to slander this life.” In other words God made a place (heaven) to negate the value of this life and existence. Nearly every religion entails some form of life after death and it is inevitably better than the life before us, with the exception of a “hell”, which one is relinquished to as a consequence for revolting against our slave master in a futile attempt for liberation.
As for the nature of the human being, we shall examine only from the viewpoint of Christianity, not all religion for the author has not the time or the knowledge to do the latter. If one examines Christianity, and accepts it as truth you find that the human being is evil and flawed with few or no redeeming qualities. Let’s present a hypothetical situation and propose a Christian might analyze it. A man murders the Dalai Lama, or the Pope. When people inquire why an omnipotent god would not interfere to prevent such a travesty, our Christian might respond with, “God awarded human beings free will.” But wait! Something incredible occurs, a miracle even. A human being risks his life, or even throws away his life to save another! To this a Christian might say, “It was by the grace of God.” Note: this event was due not to the intrinsic goodness and free will of a human but rather the will of God. Is therefore man incapable of goodness? And what of this loving god? Why does he sometimes proffer us his grace to be good, or interfere directly in the form of miracles, but will not always do so. Is such a loving god content to view destruction without feeling enough compassion to prevent it? Perhaps this god does interfere. But could it not be that he is constantly interfering, acting for his own entertainment as opposed to our benefit. Or is it that we really do have free will, in which case this god may never interfere, for whatever reason. A mother chooses to abandon her child in the cold. Yet the child is saved by the grace of God? Does this interference not negate the mother’s free will? And is free will really such an unalienable right as Christians say? For when a murderer kill his victim, does he not violate the victims will to live? Is it possible that such an omnipotent being cannot do what a flawed man can? And given such an example, can free will ever truly and completely exist? No, free will is a farce.
Unfortunately I deviate from my original intent, by singling out Christianity rather than destroying religion entirely. Previously mentioned were basic questions which religion tries to answer. But it is conceivable that this in itself points to all religion worshipping the same being. In order to demonstrate that all religion is reactionary and varying only according to its environment it is best to examine archaic religions. For our purposes, ancient Greek religion shall be used, though any archaic religion would suit this purpose. In ancient Greece religion was used to explain everything they couldn’t comprehend and didn’t have the science to explain. Mighty Zeus was the one who cast down thunderbolts. When Persephone was forced to spend time in the underworld, her mother Demeter mourned and the result was winter. And upon death, one must be buried so that he or she may be taken and dipped in Lethe (the river of forgetfulness) and then proceed to live a dull but not bad life in the underworld for all of eternity. With the modern knowledge of the present it is an easy task to dismiss these claims as absurd. To see them as stories and ideas invented to pacify the Greek’s curiosity about the reason for events in their daily lives. A modern person might even scoff at these ridiculous stories and ask, “How could they believe that?” “What proof or evidence was ever demonstrated to prove these ideas true?” A person may ask question such as these, and they are understandable questions, but in all likelihood this person is (or is acting very similar to) a hypocrite. For what proof does a Christian have that there is a heaven? What do Buddhists have to demonstrate the reality of Karma and Nirvana? And what proof do Jews have that a messiah is still on the way?
Of course a common answer is that the proof lies in sacred scripture. But are these not also manmade items? Most likely to explain what the humans of the time could not comprehend? For example the bible contains information pointing to a heaven, but also contains a story detailing the creation of the universe which today is obviously false. The creation stories today are written off as symbolic, written not as truth but to convey a meaning. But who can say that was the author’s intent? After all aren’t church theologians changing their interpretations to suit the times? For the story of creation was taught as dogmatic truth until science disproved it. Is it not more likely that the story actually was intended to detail the creation of the universe, for those who were curious about the origins of their world? And should this be true, what makes Christianity any different from the religion of the ancient Greeks? They are both simple reactions to what is unknown and rather terrifying. The terrifying aspect is death and what happens after death. This is a realm into which science can not yet transcend, and therefore religion is still used as a comfort blanket for the human race. For death is frightening, and after death is unimaginable. Most of mankind is unwilling to accept that they cannot know what post-death entails and put their hope into the fallacy called religion, which as can now be seen essentially feeds off the fear of the unknown.
When a person stumbles upon and uncovers the charade know as religion a question to a member of the faithful usually follows. The response to the inquiries about believing without proof, without fail, possesses somewhere the word faith. It is described as not having evidence but believing anyway. This logic (if it can be called that) would be outlandish if applied to any other aspect of life. Though for some reason it’s entirely acceptable for it to apply to religious beliefs. In fact not only is it possible for faith to be an acquaintance of religion but many of the religious deem it a necessity. If one were to have overt proof of a God or a heaven it would not be the same as believing without proof. This is absurd. Why believe in something without proof? Apply this logic to everyday life, (and religion seemingly should be applicable to everyday life) and see the insanity embedded in it. A man decides that he can drive ninety miles per hour on a street where the speed limit is forty-five miles per hour. He has no reason for choosing ninety, except perhaps that it is between the numbers eighty and one hundred. Soon enough he is pulled over by a police officer. When the policeman tries to write him a ticket, or even arrest the man for reckless driving he shakes his head no, and then states, “I believe ninety miles per hour is a safe speed to drive on this street.” The policeman might say, “Well what about all the scientific study and thought that has been put into determining that the safe speed is forty-five miles per hour?” The man states he will not regard this information, because he has no use for it. He has faith that ninety miles per hour is safe. By now the police officer’s jaw has dropped below his belt. He can’t believe what he is hearing. He could ask, “Well why do you believe that ninety miles per hour is safe?” The man might reply with something like, “I don’t need reasons. Reasons would undermine the concept of actually believing something.” The policeman is just astounded. Is a person actually thinking like this? He gets in his police car and simply drives away, and come Sunday he goes to church.
[This message has been edited by lolashookitup (edited 04-27-2004).]