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
