Religion has always been a popular subject for most of humanity throughout time whether it be the archaic polytheist religions of the ancient Greek and Romans, with their numerous Gods for most aspects in life, to the modern monotheist religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam and of course, the even more modern religions of Scientology and the religion of Star Trek, both involving worship of extraterrestrial beings.
To me religion has always been and always will be a simplistic theory in order to explain things that man himself cannot explain. For it is a lot easier to say an omnipotent, or many omnipotent beings are the reason why something is rather than the true reason. Still, there could be argument over whether the 'true' reason is either the sun rises and sets because of Earth's relative motion to the sun, or as a result of the God of Ra traveling on his boat through the sky. The reason why i put true in quotations is because of the constant struggle that in my opinion does not exist, between science and religion. Many people think these two defy each other but in fact these two can co-exist simultaneously for science does not concentrate solely on the ideas of human interaction: morals, ethics or even death, but are much more concerned with an explanation of our environment (not so much trees, bugs but more so the world around us including the stars, particles of matter, and energy itself as a concept). Being an monotheist, when i use the word God i refer to a single God but all polytheists can assume i refer to the idea of any omnipotence, and in particular the one useful in explaining the concept i introduce. There should only be a collision between belief in God and science if one were to bring up the idea that God is the sole controller and monitor of nature, however as proven by the existence of life itself, nature can be manipulated by organisms, hence God is not the only controller of nature. Therefore, God and science should be able to co-exist.
Most people turn to religion for spirituality, and guidance, maybe even morals and ethics (or the teachings on the ambiguous ideals of right and wrong) rather than the explanation on why the sun rises nowadays simply because science can explain most of the other things effectively. Yet are there not better places for guidance: a psychiatrist for mental anguish, a careers adviser for frictional unemployment, a teacher for academic problems and a doctor for deteriorating health. Most of these jobs exist because of Science or Social Science (note i consider Psychiatry a social science as with careers adviser, technically a teacher could also be thus prescribed in the same section). Religion once provided a haven for those suffering with poor health (curse/spite from God), those with no jobs and those who had mental problems (demons). To me, religion is simply a archaic form of law, a school of thought to dictate human behaviour to what is more collectively described as "right" and "wrong", but nowadays is replaced by, in most countries, common law and statutory law. Nowadays what is right and wrong is stipulated by one or the other or both. For example, thou shalt not kill is replaced by the punishment of imprisonment according the statutory law, as well as social shunning according to common law. Similarly, a lesser act of lying to a friend is not statutorily enforceable (unless you know a threat to the country in which case it is treason, or if you know of something that could help a crime investigation in which case it is obstructing justice), but once discovered, your friend plus other people in your clique may shun you for lying. Nowadays morals and ethics are no longer required by religion, ridding of another of its purposes. The last purpose which is unfortunately unarguable is spirituality, which in my opinion is the self-reflection of oneself for this there are many alternatives than religion but religion remains the main source.
The difference between crazy theorists and preachers is that religion has embedded itself as accepted within society where no one chooses to believe a crazy theorist, but if there were enough followers (much like there is to a God), similarly the 'insane' theorist can have as much legitimacy as a preacher, which is little to none outside their beliefs of a God whether it be a omnipotent one, or simply an ideal concerning corruption in high government officials.
Let us not discount the benefits of religion, neither make it seem as though i am an atheist for i believe in the freedom of religion for all, for religion itself is an act of expression which is a fundamental freedom. Using the idea of law which is to create a system of rules of which society can function with the most allocative freedom without limiting the freedoms of others, religion can only be deemed extreme or negative when it hinders the freedom of others whom are not its followers. Much like the extremists of Islam who have destroyed human life in their holy war against America, this is not a religion, but "terrorism". Much like Hitler's Third Reich who similarly destroyed human life, this is not a religion but so widely discussed it has become Nazism, an actual English word describing their idealism. Similarly, all current religions only retain their religion status because they do not hinder the freedoms of non-followers. For example, religious cults are "extreme" because they force people who are non-followers to follow. WARNING: PERSONAL ATTACK HERE AGAINST A CERTAIN PERSON: This is why, the thing that annoys me most are overzealous preachers who promote their religious, most of the time, in a incoherent manner, only further turning me away from the ideals certain religions have. You can follow your religion, even preach it as long as you do not hinder other people's freedoms, which includes amongst it freedom to not have to encounter your incredulous words of idiocy. Yet if history also recalls, Christianity and Islam had a "little" war called the Crusades which in fact did hinder freedoms but for reasons of the insignificance of such an argument i will not embark on this issue.
In its broadest sense, religion is an ideal but when we refer to a religion, we assume certain aspects of a religion to exist for example: a worshiped divine being/s, a set of morals/ethics set out in some sort of scripture, a place/state of worship and also a system of guidance reflecting age with certain statuses along the way including the possible existence of an alternate life before/after the current reality. To me, as an agnostic, i believe in a omnipotent singular God that could exist and the rationale for me is simply that man himself needs something bigger (rather more powerful) than himself to exist and in the vast expanses of matter, space, time, energy, it cannot be down to mere chance that things such as life or even matter itself existing without some sort of omnipotence. Similarly i believe in an after-life of sorts simply because at the current time the comprehension of nothingness is illogical. For these reasons i believe in something, but i do not think a book of riddles is able to limit my ability to think as freely as one can, or limit my decisions.
N.B. These are only my incoherent ramblings.
Any similarities or personal attacks to any real persons living or dead are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
No comments:
Post a Comment