Back to square one
This one is dedicated to my friend Faran.
The argument that is frequently brought up by many people while defending religion is that its the people who practice it that are to be blamed rather than the dogma they follow. I feel that is a total cop out.
Lets try out the reverse. Lets say we start appreciating people for doing good deeds rather than the religion they follow. So every welfare act that is done by the missionaries, be it Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/etc. should be attributed to the individuals rather than the platform that is being used for those good things. They open up schools, hospitals, feed the poor because they are good people, not because of their faith. Religion becomes irrelevant. The point being if religion is incapable of turning society into a better place, then what is the point of it anyway?
The Muslims of Saudi Arabia punish a women for being alone with a man after she is gang raped by a group of men. So what if Islam's injunction is used to justify this punishment? Is it the followers or Islam? A Pakistani Muslim man strangles his daughter for not wanting to wear the hijab in Canada. What is to be blamed here? The fact that Islam/some school of thought believes that women should wear hijab or the man who can actually strangle his own flesh and blood because of what he believes in? Where does one draw the line?
I don't think the argument holds any substance, as I said earlier, its a cop out. For those who haven't heard of Epicurus, here is something that he wrote a long time ago
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able, the whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him god?
And so society struggles. The problem with the monotheistic religions as I see it is their refusal to change with times. There are no absolute truths, its all relative my dear Faran.
The argument that is frequently brought up by many people while defending religion is that its the people who practice it that are to be blamed rather than the dogma they follow. I feel that is a total cop out.
Lets try out the reverse. Lets say we start appreciating people for doing good deeds rather than the religion they follow. So every welfare act that is done by the missionaries, be it Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/etc. should be attributed to the individuals rather than the platform that is being used for those good things. They open up schools, hospitals, feed the poor because they are good people, not because of their faith. Religion becomes irrelevant. The point being if religion is incapable of turning society into a better place, then what is the point of it anyway?
The Muslims of Saudi Arabia punish a women for being alone with a man after she is gang raped by a group of men. So what if Islam's injunction is used to justify this punishment? Is it the followers or Islam? A Pakistani Muslim man strangles his daughter for not wanting to wear the hijab in Canada. What is to be blamed here? The fact that Islam/some school of thought believes that women should wear hijab or the man who can actually strangle his own flesh and blood because of what he believes in? Where does one draw the line?
I don't think the argument holds any substance, as I said earlier, its a cop out. For those who haven't heard of Epicurus, here is something that he wrote a long time ago
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able, the whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him god?
And so society struggles. The problem with the monotheistic religions as I see it is their refusal to change with times. There are no absolute truths, its all relative my dear Faran.
posted by Xoff at 12/13/2007 05:07:00 AM
6 Comments:
epicurus, had his understanding, religion i believe does not require changing with the times.rather than being the cop out, i would attribute the mis- representation of religion to the people who profess to practice said religion. it has never been my understanding that it was "gods" job to eradicate evil, it has been rather the presence/idea of an omnipresent being, who's guideline's on earth, was to provide the human race with a framework in which to live with respect and love for all human kind. that we fail to do this cannot be blamed on religion, or the existance or non existence of god.
those that do good works, are good people, some guided by faith and some not, the other side of the coin is much the same,there are evil people in the world, who can twist religion to suite their evil intentions, this is no way means that religion has to change to entertain human misbehaviour.
rather shouldn't human kind, re-adjust it's own behaviour?
If religion doesn't have the capacity to change people, then it becomes pointless, and that is what my point is. I see a good argument here, so bring it on!!
;-)
i don't agree, religion has the capacity to enlighten people, change can only happen if people are willing to understand and accept what religion tries to achieve, be it judaism/hinduism/christianity/islam,any belief structure really. to become blinkered and one sided in one's belief, is not the purpose of religion. change can only happen when people are willing to accept and understand that nothing in life is finite.
If that is your interpretation of religion, then it differs greatly from how it is perceived by the majority of the followers in the world.
I don't have problem with religion as a philosophy, but when it starts to fringe upon areas that it should rightly stay away from, thats when it creates problems.
A micro-managing supreme being whose will is responsible for all that happens in the universe is an improbability based on the scientific method.
My argument is against such a being and its followers. If what you say is true for your belief, there is no difference between most religions.
But we are going off on a tangent. The point I am trying to make is that you can't have religion be held responsible for only the good things that people do in its name. If religion is responsible, then it is also responsible for the bad things. And if the argument is that individuals are responsible for the bad things, then they must be responsible for the good as well.
Been reading your posts for a long long time. You have a way with words and clarity in your thoughts. I absolutely agree with what you said about religions. I guess religious practice; as long as it stays personal, is ok. But the problem is; it very rarely stays personal. People are no longer happy by just booking a seat for themselves in paradise, they are hell bent on doing it for others as well and that’s when trouble starts :)
Thank you, you. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home