Note: This topic may be controversial to some, and the information presented here may be incomplete in their own respect. Please do be understanding, and feel free to leave a comment in an attempt to improve our interpretation and understanding of this topic.
____________
What is Religion?
Some people think Religion is the religion we see and hear today: Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism etc. Some people take it to a more personal level and define religion as a set of beliefs forged by the individual or a community (ie. The saying that Money is my Religion). Before we get to analyse Religion as a philosophy of Truth, I would like to redefine Religion once more:
Wikipedia has maintained that: The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[1] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.
Some people believe religion, or religions- are different and irreconcilable beliefs and practices forged by differing cultures and philosophies. I will not attempt to disclaim this opinion, because much as I would want people to respect my beliefs I have to respect the opinions of others too. I personally do not see too great a distinction between religion; I believe that as long as a particular religion speaks of Truth and values that advocate life, then that religion is already a true religion itself.
As I once quoted: If we advocate the existence of Truth, then we would have advocated the existence of God. Today, we will see how Religion, as a general whole, explain (and be a philosophy of) Truth.
It is interesting to note that most religions have a certain concept towards Truth. As much as the Buddhists have the Four Noble Truths as a fundamental teaching, Judaism recognises Truth in the Word of God. Christianity maintained Truth fundamentally with Judaism, with an added aspect that since Jesus (God) is 'the Way, the Truth and the Life'; hence the bible (being the teachings of Jesus and ultimately the word of God) is without error and True. Hinduism advocates Truth as a state of being true (righteous)- be it in speech, nirvana, or reality. Jainism believes that there is only one Truth, which is not one-sided but wholesome, and that only the enlightened may fully perceive that Truth as it truly is.
Allow me to have the liberty summarize the above information into one concise statement: Subjective religion may be in their approach, they actually point (in their respect) to the existence of the Objective Truth.
Now it would be easy to assume that Truth is actually Objective, and that metaphysical subjectivism is actually a subset method in an attempt for humans to find the objective Truth. I do not believe that this assumption is valid- we do not know for a fact whether there is an objective truth for everything, and as long as there is uncertainty there would be subjectivity: for different hypotheses would lead to different beliefs (and religion), and no one can objectively say which point of view is True or False [this view actually corresponds to that of Jainism]. Hence till the day should we find out that there is either an Objective Truth for everything or that there is no Objective Truth, Truth will be subset-ted equally to both the Objective Truth and the Subjective Truth.
I would like to turn your attention to the means the different religions adopt to reach to their ultimate conclusion to their Objective Truths. Their methods are highly subjective when viewed in a macro approach, as different religions have very different beliefs and teachings that lead them to very different conclusions. So if I were to ask a generic question "Is there one True way for Religion to meet the Objective Truth?" there would be no true answer because everything is subjective. In this respect, religion is a very subjective philosophy in an attempt to define Truth, which I personally take to believe as equally Subjective as much as it is Objective.
While some religions have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions, others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. It is notable that the formalistic doctrinal definitions actually are built upon the latter factors of feeling and intuition to give 'logic' and reinforce the 'sentiments' experienced. Hence no matter what approach taken, religion is something we could coin as a 'subjective, feeling, belief' thing.
Putting this in layman's terms, haven't religion always stressed on 'faith', 'trust', and ultimately, 'love'? Those 'sentimental' values are actually part of that philosophy of how Religion seeks the Truth.
Putting it all together, the philosophy of Religion is one of a subjective 'sentiments' based method in search for that Truth, which in terms of Religion, is Subjective (in macro view) and Objective (in individual respect). Note that while Religion paints a more wholistic picture than Science that the Truth is both Objective and Subjective at the same time, it's methods are still greatly subjective to the perceptions and beliefs of the individual. (in comparison, the Scientific method is more objective in seeking out the Truth because it's much more logical and rational)
Integrating Science and Religion would have definitely complimented both Objective and Subjective methods in an attempt to understand the Truth. This approach is definitely 'wholesome', for Truth itself comprises of both factors. Yet both methods have yet to pinpoint the exact definition of Truth today. I believe this is owing to the imperfections of the human 'Knowledge'- uncertainty from both Science and Religion. I shall discuss this issue of the uncertain in the next chapter under 'causality determinism and free-will', and I personally hope that by then, when we have defined the unknown, can we finally get started to understand the applications of Truth in our lives.
2 comments:
Another thought provoking post. I personally share the belief that the different religions are not "different". Well, ok, they worship different deities, I myself am catholic. But the major religions aka Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc, they all teach the same life values(be a good person, dont kill etc). I've always seen religion as a "path" to the "Truth".
But religion has to be not only a "faith" thing, but also a logical and feeling thing. THe main problem i see in many peers and friends from various religions is that they either use the religion as a "tool"(oh god grant me more money etc)for immediate gains, or as a "blind faith" thing.(It says like this in the bible, hence it IS the TRUTH), while i feel that the bible is more a "manual" for finding the truth. There are even hintings in the book that point AWAY from a "blind faith" following and more a wholesome, integrated "awareness" and "experiencing" BASED on the trust one has in god.
Basically, "faith" or "trust in god", may not be the "TRUTH"(as so many of people i know regard it as) but rather an orientation vector toward the truth.
Sorry if im speaking very christian only stuff, since im a christian and dont know much about the other religions. :)
Please don't apologise that you're coming from a Christian point of view. Personally, I am a Christian myself too; besides, as I have iterated, I do not see to great distinction between religions.
But one of the more important things to note is that it is not only the Christians, but also people from other religions that are interpreting the essence of religion wrongly. Indeed, I am glad you had pointed that out.
But nevertheless, don't worry- allow me to have the liberty to discuss this issue in a Christian point of view.
As we may very well know, Christianity, and many well- defined religions today, differs from most traditional religions (think fertility Goddesses). What is the difference? I believe that the difference lies in the methods of finding the Truth which they believe in.
We know that traditional religions bank greatly on fediestic belief, word and the 'supernatural' to bring forth their interpretations to the 'truth' they believe in. Little logic can be seen in why people still worship Thunder Gods and Fertility Goddesses when their children go to school the next day to learn about the static electricity and the nitrogen cycle.
But many religions had evolved with the advent of science. Indeed they too start with belief over logic (we see little logic why Abraham wanted to kill his kid apart from his faith in God, and I believe his kid would have thought so too LOL). However as time went by, these religions too incorporated logical thought into their beliefs- to re-affirm their convictions, to reason out the unknown, all done in an attempt to better understand the Truth of their religion.
Why incorporate logical thought? Maybe it's really an objective Truth that Truth is an integration of beliefs and logic, maybe it is an attempt to maintain relevancy to the scientific community and the world today. As a result, many religions we know of have a deep philosophy within- and as Bertrand Russell quoted, philosophy is an intermediate 'between logical thought and personal beliefs'
Putting it into Christian contexts- we call this philosophy Theology, or the REASONED discourse of God.
Indeed, you are right to say that 'faith' itself may not be the Truth. To assume so would have definitely provided a very 'Fertility Goddess' point of view- and for Christians to do and believe that God is no more than a 'Faith' thing would have completely disregarded the profoundness of Theology our Holy Fathers had seeked for. I am in no position to objectively judge them as wrong, but definitely I can have at least the liberty to say that their approach is very one sided and incomplete.
Theology has maintained that the Bible itself is true; but once again this statement should not be taken literally. Basic KNOWLEDGE in literature has already brought light that a text should not be taken not only literally, but it also requires inference, impression, and critical thought. If Knowledge is Truth, how could we then disregard the Truth of literature for the Truth of the Bible?
I'll dwell deeper into the Theory on Now and Forever soon, but it'll help greatly to know that people today are thinking too 'literally' and 'superficially'- indeed, we have professed that God is Eternal- hence if I were to rephrase this concept I can safely say that he encompasses both Yesterday, Now and Forever. Hence it'll be equally one sided to take him on a very superficial 'Now' side and ask for 'immediate gratifications' i.e. your example of 'Oh God grant me more money'.
Many people today are caught in the above traps mentioned- for 'believing' too much, and to be overly caught up in today's world they fail to recognize that the God they worship goes beyond these parameters. it is because of such issues (and others) that I had started Project Re-affirmation, I am glad you had pointed out this fact- and I sincerely that now with at least a basic Knowledge of Logic and Faith, in both the Now and Eternal aspects, can we find the holistic Truth to not only God, but also to other aspects of our lives.
Post a Comment