Sunday, 09 November 2008
-
Stop doing religion wrong, guys, seriously.
Going to an art school, the majority of the students, like me, are agnostic. This is kinda confusing considering the history of art, but I guess creativity only runs in the blood of anarchistic heathens in this day and age. I'm kidding, kinda. but on the subject fo being anarchistic heathens, my friend and I got into a discussion about the innacurate portrayal of agnostics by pretty much everyone.
To be religious, it's assumed that one has to be tied to a religion. This encompasses the foundation of the problem with religion as a whole. The title of a religion is tied strictly to the religion's scripture, and not the ethics, because, for the most part, all religions have almost identical moral codes. So, one has to call themselves a "Christian," "Catholic," or "Muslim," in spite of having the same rules against murder, rape, theft, etc. And naturally, because these religions follow different literature, they have to look down on each other, because being different is just stupid, and you're stupid for being different (that's the code of all mankind right there, folks).
So, I wear the title of agnostic, because we have to have titles for everything, society would panic without a label and system of identification for everything. Because of this label, it's assumed I disregard everything about all religion. Obviously this is bullshit. I have read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, two books on taoism, a book on budhism, and even a book on Krishna that some monk gave me a few months ago. the last three are incredibly more interesting, since rather than telling incredibly ridiculous stories to prove their points, they discuss philosophy. Granted, these are just a few books on a very select few religions. Either way, though, I realized how dramatically similar they all really are.
So, take away the literature and stories of the respective religious texts, because, true or not, they are only in there to reinforce the morals and ideals that the religion is founded on. They are not important, and not ment to be taken literally in any context as they so often are. Suddenly, religion isn't so bad, and something I can totally get into. I'm still not going to accept whether there is or isn't a God, because I can't prove that. But again, diety isn't important in religion, either, and some don't even have one. I mean, what is a God in a religious sense? Someone who may or may not be there who you pray to, who may or may not do what you ask, which is irrelevant because he or she already has your fate pre-determined, so what the fuck are you praying for, anyway? Oh, also it's someone who you can kill in the name of, and it's automatically justified.
I don't hate religion, I just hate where society has placed the focus. That is, everyone is so caught up in literally interpreting the religious texts that they forget the point of religion. Religion is there to set a unified moral code and to give hope to those who need it. Instead, it's being used to give hate an excuse. I know this isn't any sort of new revelation, that the religious are misusing their religion, that's been done since before history. The problem that I've come to realize, though, is that while everything else in society advances, religion doesn't, and in my mind the single-most visible cause of this is the labelling and segregation of religions. But then, what do I know, I'm a anarchistic heathen.
-
recommend
- recs 47
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Post a Comment
- Back to DrugInducedDuck's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in DrugInducedDuck's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (196)
Bravo! Strip religion of its affiliations and fluff, and you've reached a pure level of spirituality. Great message.
@DrugInducedDuck - You can't prove a negative, and the attached correlate to that is that if you can't prove the positive, you assume the negative.
I so agree with you that religion serves to provide a moral code for the society and individual to act. It should unify us and not divide us (though that's what humans like to do). Great writing!
@realungabunga - See, the part where you think people following a different religion is a "mistake" is the point of this post. Do you really think that if there is a God, he or she would be so selective that even though someone follows another religion, lives a great life and helps others, that person is damned no matter what because they chose wrongly out of the hundreds of religions out there? If that's your God, your God is a douchebag bigot, and seems a lot more like a trait of those writing the scriptures rather than a God.
As for archaeological evidence, nope, there is nothing there to prove the stories true, because they're not. They're based on stories formed by older religions, the same religions that christianity have declared to be wrong. The stories aren't important, though, that's what I'm trying to say. They, like fairy tales, are there to provide morals for the reader. Just because they found an old wooden boat does not mean it's the Ark, it's just an old wooden boat.
Love it love it love it. So true. Keep on speakin' truth, man.
Meh, in the long run religion is simply a set of beliefs about how things are, how things should be, how people should act, etc. There's honestly no room for hatred in the equation, but people are going to bring it in no matter what, and that's the way it is everywhere. So, while people are fighting to marry their same-sex significant other, and for other general areas of free will that they currently don't have, tons of people are abusing the free will they do have (the ability to have your own beliefs, rather than everyone having to have the same set of them) by arguing over it. Personally, I don't care what a persons beliefs are. If they want to think they evolved from a tennis shoe, that's their thing.
@DrugInducedDuck -
" The fact that I don't have this evidence proves that I cannot proove a God or disproove a God."
-- One's lack of evidence doesn't prove a universal negative. For a long time, we had no evidence for the existence of x-rays (or substitute in any other thing we had no evidence for). Did that mean x-rays did not exist until Roentgen came along? Of course not. Or, I can disprove the existence of man named John Smith in Florida because I have no evidence of such a man. However, if I did a little searching, I could very well come across such a man and prove his existence. Did he then not exist until I found information about him? Or did my lack of evidence for him prove that I could never prove his existence? Of course not.
Also, just to clarify, I'm not asking if you can prove that you can't prove god at this very instant. Sure, I can't prove a lot of things right now, but that doesnt' mean it can never be proved (just in case that's how you interpreted my question). I'm asking you how you can prove your claim of a universal negative. Those are things that genearlly aren't proved very easily.
You have to provide an argumement for why god can never be proved or disproved. One way is to claim complete knowledge of every argument ever made for and against the existence of god, in addition to every possible argument that could ever be made. But I doubt that's the case.
Also, I do take issue with the statement that one always needs "evidence" per se to prove something. Not all proofs are within the realm of science and empirical study (although I'm not bashing the usefulness of empircal investigation and knowledge derived from it). One doesn't prove the laws of logic by finding evidence. Instead, one can use a reductio ad absurdem argument. Or if one can prove that something is a necessary condition for a known truth, then that argument is sufficient. I think our current culture puts too much emphasis on the emprical side of epistemology, and not enough of the rational side.
@thechris38 - I don't even get the point of this. When I say I cannot proove whether or not a God does or does not exist, I'm pretty fucking sure I can't. There's no universal negative there, it's just uncertainty. That's like if I said "Love cures cancer." As it stand right now, I have no solid, conclusive evidence that shows that it does or it does not. And yes, in science, for something to be "proven" there has to be solid, conclusive evidence, otherwise it's always considered a theory.
so religion as a social construct... except that instead of being used to order or subjugate a society you see it as a means of existential satisfaction. you might appreciate ludwig feuerbach's projection theory of religion, or viktor frankl's work on logotherapy.
@DrugInducedDuck -
Perhaps we've misunderstood each other then. Or more precisely, I may have misunderstood the intent of the statement in your post. When most people say they can't prove god, they're meaning to state a universal negative saying that the existence of god is unprovable. But I guess you were just saying you're merely unaware of any such proof (either for or against). In that case, I have no issue at all. My bad. I suppose I've listened to too many people make those statements and I jumped the gun.
"And yes, in science, for something to be
"proven" there has to be solid, conclusive evidence, otherwise it's
always considered a theory."
-- But not everything is proven via science. Just go talk to a philosopher. Science doesn't prove the law of non-contradiction, or that 2+2 = 4. These propositions are known through pure logic. Nothing empirical needs to be involved at all, and you don't need to go find some piece of "evidence" to prove it. In fact, one has to establish a philosophy of science before they can even do science. There are many propositions that are more fundamental than science. And if they're more fundamental than science, then science won't be proving or disproving these particular things.
As I said before, I think our society is very biased towards relying almost totally on an empirical view of epistemology. While it's fine to read your Hume, we need to read our Kant as well.
wow what a cool point of view! i've thought about it like this before but you put it into words so nicely =D
Thank you for providing food for thought. We obviously disagree on some points, but how can I rightfully revile you (is there such a thing as rightfully reviling someone?) unless I understand you? Hmmm...maybe there is a better way I should've put that, but what do I know? I'm just an evangelical Christian.
@freddy_oh - heh, you're one of the few evangelical Chistians that made me realize Christianity isn't the evil that it's reputation would have me believe.
Being a follower of Jesus Christ is not about religion. Religion is man's attempt to reach God; Jesus Christ is God's attempt to reach man.
@DrugInducedDuck - The Bible was not written in a time when "slavery was cool, the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us."
It was written during a time when slavery happened, but a) it was a part of their culture and had a very different connotation from the slavery of the Civil War, more like indentured servitude, not based on race and b) many other things were written during that time. Some condoned slavery, some did not. The Bible does not.
Christian scriptures were written some 300-1000 years before the ideas of a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth ever came about. The Bible, incidentally, doesn't promote either concept. It does, however, mention a round Earth in Isaiah 40:22. Isaiah was written 300 years before Aristotle proposed the idea.
@DrugInducedDuck - "As for archaeological evidence, nope, there is nothing there to prove the stories true, because they're not."
Now
that's just downright untrue. There is bountiful archaeological
evidence for claims made in the Bible. Geographical information,
information about battles, genealogies, languages and cultures,
information about rulers, the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the falling of the walls of Jericho, even the existence of a person named Jesus
who led a radical group and was crucified (in secular, Roman records);
all of these and more are backed up by hard archaeological finds.
well, im a random person who actually disagrees. ive read different religious texts, and no theyre not the same. even some issues of morals are not the same. I dont think religion is there for simply moral issues even though it does hold a standard to which humanity judges a lot of things. I agree that hating others because of their religion and such is wrong. I as a christian would say to all other christians that the two greatest commandments are to 1. love God with all your heart, and 2. love your neighbor as yourself (among that love your enemies). So in the end, where does 'conflict' begin? it begins in the definition of Truth. If one does not believe in Truth one would not fight for anything, one would not stand up for anything, one would not live for anything. For example, If one believes that a certain football team is the best football team ever, then that is "Truth" to that person in the sense that he or she would cheer for that team and be (at the very least) sad or offended when someone bashes on that team. In the same way, Christians, or any other religion that holds to "Truth" would defend their faith and live for it entirely, and again, hating and killing others just cuz is wrong. Does saying another person is wrong necessarily mean that one is belittling another? as imperfect human beings, its very tempting to do so. but if a christian fully knew what humility and love means, then they would not. As for other religions they may or may not teach differently on that matter. I personally have found that God does exist. God doesn't answer prayers? God has answered every prayer that i have prayed, even when i pray for rain to stop, it happens, not just once but multiple times. I have also seen how God can change people for the better, to bring people out of depression, to give people joy amidst suffering. What is religion there for? religion is there to point upwards and show us that There must be more to this life.
Im sorry but i think you ahve it wrong. my God said over and over again, "Choose me because I can give you life." not because he wants to damn you. Hell isnt a "place" per se. Hell is where God is not. one can either choose to be with God, or be where God is not. God wants you to live thats why He sent His only Son to die for you, to die in your place, so that you can be wiht God if you choose.
additonally, many turn to religion as a refuge when times become less predictable, apparently looking for something secure. For many of these folks, the more doubt that's raised, the more tightly they hold on to doctrines that haven't seemed to change in ... well, forever. A serious problem develops under these conditions; otherwise intelligent individuals become more easily pulled into becoming objects of ridicule
An example is the grasping at selected passages of scripture that serve to support their interpretation of what's going wrong, as opposed to reading them for the consolation, comfort, and encouragement that exists there.
I'm occasionally cajoled to attend services on the grounds that I "need the fellowship", but I find that everywhere already, in some very unexpected places and among people whom might not be guessed to be a source. Faith, used as a weapon for division, is among the most destructive forces imaginable; used as an invitation for unification, is among the most creative and life-affirming energies imaginable.
Great post!
It's sad how people focus on the differences than on the similarities. At the heart of it all, maybe in some point in time our thoughts on what we now call "religion" was a simple cohesion of thoughts. Eventually they split into what we now see as the different denominations and religions and "branches" of those religions. It's just a hypothesis. As always there are those most of the time "extremists", that take the face of a religion and scar it forever. When I say extremists I do not simply categorize it under Islam, as a Christian I am more sick of Christians themselves. For example I saw a "God hates gays" thing. You know what I wanted to do? Sock that person in the face, then give them an elbow to the back of the head. It pisses me off. So much that I don't really strut around calling myself Christian simply because I'm ashamed of how people look at Christians as a bunch of hypocrites. It's true, I hate them myself, but in reflection I'm no better...but at least I'm not ignorant. For something that should be enlightening, it's easily twisted to fulfill the needs of one's greed. I always keep an open mind, when I speak I may be blunt, but at heart I'm cultured enough to respect different ways of thinking. Just like the great thinkers of our past philosophy is strong enough to shape the minds of people and governments. I like this post. If you don't know keep in mind everyone that falls under the category of "religious" or whatnot aren't as stereotyped as we seem. There are those who long for change. Open minded thinking ftw. Payce man!
You are missing the faith element in your analysis. The main part. The beer goggles that put a certain slant on perception. The concepts used to describe the reason for existing and how that existence fits into a particular interpretation of reality. By that I mean concepts like "the body of Christ" or "Enlightenment" which are amoral.
To put it another way... your post reads like a Lonely Planet travel guide... has the main technical points down pat but doesn't quite describe the sensation of actually being there, immersed in the reality of experience.
To get it you have to practice a religion. To actually go there and visit the place... not just read the travel guide. Pick a religion and try it on for size!
Because you go to art school, your work could form the basis for your personal religion... just make sure the concept behind it is founded on a denial of everyday reality... live your work 24/7... become obsessed by it... focus on it intensely and incessantly... to make it perfect in and of itself... see how your view of "the world" changes over time.
good post!
That was very, very well written.
I share your views on religion (or at least what I can confer from this post)... and I would say that extremism and fundamentalism are two (of many) things that people are getting wrong with religion.
@thechris38 - your opinions are interesting. so what you're saying is that philosophy is just as important as science? i hope i understood you right. i think that's a fine point to argue, and one im very much interested in myself. im curious, what would your philosophical argument for religion be?
randomly take, for example, an argument for free will. can free will exist alongside belief in a divine being who knows the future and determines it? in other words, can free will exist if an omniscient and omnipotent god exists? do u think philosophy can answer these kinds of questions?if science cannot defend religion, perhaps philosophy can, is that what you were saying?
I agree!