You say, that you like me are a person of reason and logic. You say that you, like me, are a man/woman of science and that unbridled inquiry is your objective.
You say we share a lot in common but for one difference...
We are separated by a gulf somewhere in how we approach life.
You believe that our lives are controlled by a divine entity and that we are puppets on a string. You believe in faith and you live a life of religion. You have faith in the divine and the supernatural. You believe that someone is watching over you and that the world can be a better place through the lord himself. You believe in helping others as a means to reach the divine. You glorify the "one" with your words and songs. You aim to live a life by the code of the "one". You lead your life sheltered by that code even as your life is cloaked in the fabric of religion.
I, on the other hand, believe that life is but a series of coincidences and random events. I see our world riddled with randomness even as i struggle to find some semblance of meaning. I see constellations in the sky but i know they hold no pattern or deeper meaning. I guard myself against hope and blind faith. I battle with my beliefs and question my thoughts and prejudices. My faith, is on me. My faith, is on goodness and honesty but i am unable to reach out to the divine that you are holding onto. I try and live a life of reason and logic. Of hard work and sincerity. Of passion and joy. I believe that we make our world our way. I help others because I can and because it helps me. I moved out of the fold of religion a long time ago, in my search for the truth. I make my own codes and I live by them and even as I live by my rules, I let others live with theirs. You may think I am self centered, but I think my life is just centered around me.
After all, we cant live for someone and no one can live for us.
But is this gulf big enough ?
I see that despite my self-centeredness, I am able to respect your opinion and live with it as long as I am granted my freedom. You on the other hand, struggle to accept my spirit of inquiry despite your moral code and faith. You struggle to accept my questions and my answers.
I try to understand how reason gets blinded like this ? How do we all get entrapped by these rigid walls of religion and tradition ? How do we forget that "not believing" is just another choice some people can make as is "believing" ? Faith can't make us a better person. Religion is a code that scares people into submission. Can faith be so important ? Can religion unify us despite all other differences ?
We may be like the banks of a river, moving ahead in the same direction but never together. But we could still share our thoughts just like the waters between the river banks ?
I struggle to understand how faith becomes so important to a man who believes and so irrelevant to someone who doesn't.... If religion is meant to encourage harmony and tolerance, isn't it achieving the exact opposite now ?
You say we share a lot in common but for one difference...
We are separated by a gulf somewhere in how we approach life.
You believe that our lives are controlled by a divine entity and that we are puppets on a string. You believe in faith and you live a life of religion. You have faith in the divine and the supernatural. You believe that someone is watching over you and that the world can be a better place through the lord himself. You believe in helping others as a means to reach the divine. You glorify the "one" with your words and songs. You aim to live a life by the code of the "one". You lead your life sheltered by that code even as your life is cloaked in the fabric of religion.
I, on the other hand, believe that life is but a series of coincidences and random events. I see our world riddled with randomness even as i struggle to find some semblance of meaning. I see constellations in the sky but i know they hold no pattern or deeper meaning. I guard myself against hope and blind faith. I battle with my beliefs and question my thoughts and prejudices. My faith, is on me. My faith, is on goodness and honesty but i am unable to reach out to the divine that you are holding onto. I try and live a life of reason and logic. Of hard work and sincerity. Of passion and joy. I believe that we make our world our way. I help others because I can and because it helps me. I moved out of the fold of religion a long time ago, in my search for the truth. I make my own codes and I live by them and even as I live by my rules, I let others live with theirs. You may think I am self centered, but I think my life is just centered around me.
After all, we cant live for someone and no one can live for us.
But is this gulf big enough ?
I see that despite my self-centeredness, I am able to respect your opinion and live with it as long as I am granted my freedom. You on the other hand, struggle to accept my spirit of inquiry despite your moral code and faith. You struggle to accept my questions and my answers.
I try to understand how reason gets blinded like this ? How do we all get entrapped by these rigid walls of religion and tradition ? How do we forget that "not believing" is just another choice some people can make as is "believing" ? Faith can't make us a better person. Religion is a code that scares people into submission. Can faith be so important ? Can religion unify us despite all other differences ?
We may be like the banks of a river, moving ahead in the same direction but never together. But we could still share our thoughts just like the waters between the river banks ?I struggle to understand how faith becomes so important to a man who believes and so irrelevant to someone who doesn't.... If religion is meant to encourage harmony and tolerance, isn't it achieving the exact opposite now ?
8 comments:
I had to read through this post four times to finally find this simple point of conflict (not that I minded, just to say it was that difficult for me to understand:))- If someone lives strictly by a religious code, and that code has no room/ directions on how to handle scientific inquiry, how is that person supposed to handle it?
@ Second sight: Part of the confusion, i think was due to the zillion typos there... sorry about that !! I guess, i should never post anything without proof reading which i sometimes do... :(
As for your specific question, i don't think i can answer that because i find the conflict between faith and scientific inquiry too big to coexist. While faith discourages you to doubt, rational thought and inquiry are based on questioning at all times.
I moved away from organized religion very early in life purely out of lack of inherent consistencies. But then as my appreciation for science deepened, i have moved further and further away from faith and religion and spirituality.
I think somewhere a person does have to make a choice or enforce rigid compartmentalization. A lot of scientists are theists and manage to exercise that distinction though i am not sure how well it works in all aspects of their life. People have found many ways to reconcile science with religion and i am not sure i would go with any of them for now.
One thing that drove me to this post was actually the lack of tolerance that i find in most religious people. I mean one of the strongest defenses for religion and its existence in our social order is that it drives men towards morality and just action and away from selfish existence. Part of that morality is also greater acceptance of all people and following's one's path. Now, what i saw was that my being a "non-believer" did not prevent me from being more open to the faiths of other people as long as my "beliefs" were not questioned. But to the actual religious followers, such acceptance did not come easy. The social purpose of religion is then defeated according to me...
I wasn't referring to confusion in your post, but to the difficulties with finding solutions to the dichotomy you wrote about- Should've been clearer :). My question itself was more rhetorical- Strict religions leave no room for the mutant/sport that refuses to adhere to the code, so rigid followers are just clueless as to 'what to do with you'.
I think there is a critical distinction you overlook when you try to understand/ explain the need for religion in society. Yes, religion does exist to move people to moral action and greater acceptance. But the corollary to that is- acceptance of one's OWN kind. There is nothing in most religions that insist upon acceptance of other world views. And several religions actually say the opposite- "infidels go to hell" and so on. So very few religions have any room for acceptance or moral code established for how to treat things outside of their religion. Which brings us back to my rhetorical question :)
Well...
Let me say this, I think it is not the true followers of any religion who are narrow minded but the others who exercise their half baked understanding and develop a parochial view point. A true believer should be content/confident/satisfied and happy in his belief, confident of the fact that the truth shall eventually come to light and that his/her "almighty" is the best judge of his honest actions. He should feel no need to prove a point here because after all can he, a mere mortal, ever validate the existence of his GOD or make a difference in the name of the GOD.
At the same time, every religion as far as i see aims to bring down these barriers and attempts to foster kinship. Hinduism started off as being broad minded enough to incorporate atheism in its fold. Islam, Christianity... religions in themselves proclaim that the sinners will be punished but by the divine, not by man. It is the twisted understanding of men over the years that has fostered disagreement into dislike and finally into hatred. It has mutilated a social structure that evolved to promote kinship into a social destruction unit...
As for followers, i think, as individuals, everyone must make an honest effort to analyze rationally their life, their belief and their faith. And when done so, without fear of hell, social boycott and guilt, an individual is bound to see another's view point.
Of course, i know that this is a Utopian view but i don't see another more humane way...
I guess your rhetorical question still stands and will stand as long as men are cowed down by social mores and fear of hell...
In saying : 'true believers' should be a certain way, "everyone must make an honest effort to analyze rationally their life(..)an individual is bound to see another's view point" - how is the rational person different from the follower who says "good human beings must be a certain way, all humans must glorify the One, live a life of specific devotion" and so on?
We all have our Utopian perspectives of what things "should" be like... to what extent and how we get there is what makes all the difference... I am not influencing anyone's life or view point with mine but i expect, or rather hope, the same respect to be extended to me...
There sure is a catch there... but the point is that I, as a rational person am ready to accept a believer as long as they let me be... but to a believer the vice versa seems like a non-option... !!!
And the point is that by making a "should" statement, i am not precluding anyone's existence or faith... just saying that I should be free to my way of life...
I am not quite sure where your conflict is...
I do have a right to my perspective and all i am saying is that the tolerance i extend to you "should" be extended to me...
More importantly... while one saying that you should give up reason and follow blindly out of tradition, the other is saying that you should open your eyes and use your mind... Why are the two equal... ? Because they say "should"?? Well, we all have things we think, we and others should do ?
As long as we don't impinge on anyone's freedom, I see nothing wrong in having "should's" in our dictionary !!!
Post a Comment