Exploring the complexity of religion: An opinion

Religion is a spectrum. While the conceived notions of actions in coherence with a particular religion are at vast differences with the other ones, they have a similarity which comes from the teleological nature of religion. Every aspect one undergoes by being a member of a particular religion is an act done with regards to that principle he adheres to and has some end point for achieving a goal. 

Humanity has seen a lot of revolutions in the name of religion. There have been underlying amendments in every religion (Christianity and homophobia, Hinduism and life sacrifice) with the maturity of people and the evolution of society going forward. The very fundamental activity of amendment of rules in a social construct is characterized by what is essential for the society at that time period. Keeping the core principle of a certain sect intact, any traditional value can go through changes. And the fact that a group of people who have willingly grouped themselves together into a religious tenet can accept these modifications as society advances, speaks volumes about the flexibility of those who have a logical case for the idea.

The question that remains here now is what makes anything logical. 

According to Cambridge Dictionary, “intelligence” is the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason. But, when it comes to subjective matters like the idea of religion, reason is not a fact. All reasoning takes place within the context of some traditional mode of thought, transcending through criticism and invention the limitations of what had hitherto been reasoned in that tradition (Maclntyre, 1984). There is going to be pluralism in the context because every individual is brought up in alignment with a historical aspect which shapes his thoughts and thus, he learns to stand up for his traditions and belief system based on reasons not compulsorily validated by others. Additionally, he is not entitled to justify his beliefs to anyone unless he violates the legitimacy of the society. Because of the plurality in the concept, we are going to have disagreements in traditions, and because of having the tradition-bound reasoning aspect, we might never come to a universalized conclusion. 

John Locke, in his book “A letter Concerning Toleration”, has mentioned that “true and saving religion consists of inward persuasion of mind without which nothing can be acceptable to God.” He also has debating views regarding demonstration of certainty, because everyone has the right to interpret the Bible based on their pre-knowledge and understanding. Consequently, we can have multiple views and methods to act in the way of God. Now, which view shall we come in accordance with? Who would judge those views? And, what gives them the superior frontier to make their interpretation the best one, and thus to be followed? Locke also stressed that there is no earthly authority that may settle these disputes. Now, we can consider the persuasive aspect over the physical authority to come in handy. “The inward persuasion of mind” in true and saving religion gives a very radical thesis of religious autonomy and how it is a matter of personal conviction. To persuade that inner mind would be to reiterate his beliefs with a pedagogy he would agree to or, engage with his innermost convictions as an outlook rather than a belief system. For example: There is a temple in Nepal called “Gadhimai” where animal sacrifice is prominent. The reason for animal sacrifice is because people pledge to God that in case of fulfillment of his wishes, he would serve the head of an animal. In an interview, the head priest of the temple highlighted that, as priests, they aren’t compelled to tell people to bring animals for sacrifice, but if people do, it’s their duty to offer that pooja to the goddess. He also mentioned that he would accept non-animal offerings and carry out the pooja with them as well. I, being against the notion of animal sacrifice in the first place would question the person’s acts, and I will highlight two major things: 

  1. Animal sacrifice is wrong. 

  2. How can sacrificing something against their free will not his, by any means make him closer to God? 

These ways of persuasion of course are destined to doom in the short run, but while the first one entails the outlook of morality, the second one is more of a reiteration, using the different interpretation of what God wants from him. While morality and religion are intrinsically connected, using the fear of God would have a deeper impact on the person’s thoughts because he has accepted the moral values in connection with his religion, and not by the standard definition of morality. Thus, a more impactful statement to lure him away from this deed would be to redefine his ideals of God. And, this re-definition would in fact come to the matter of the intensity of persuasion at the end because God doesn’t have an absolute truth. 

This uncertainty in the institution of religion is what intellectuals would use as an argument now.  

If religion covers the matters dealing with scientific aspects too, I wouldn’t think an “intelligent” individual would require persuasion to believe the “facts”. That being said, Christian society at the time of Nicholas Copernicus did disregard the heliocentric theory of the universe, and the rejections and violence in this matter came from priests very highly regarded. Even now, there are people who believe that the earth is flat, or people who think that seasons change because they worship God.  Until and unless their belief poses a threat to the society, we would ignore their claims. But, the example of Nicholas Copernicus is a different one. He was a threat to society because he was the one raising voice against the then natural law. Of course, with Galileo and Kepler, it became pretty convincing later on, but from a theological point of view, the whole principle was in jeopardy. But since one couldn’t defy observed science, and couldn’t put the psychological and political dependence of people on a radical force of nature history had handed over to them aside either, we have now come to place science and religion differently. 

As of contemporary society, religion and science have long been separated. So, the logic we’ll have to justify wouldn’t be of scientific nature, but would deal with the instinct of morals. 

If somebody believes in something that doesn’t put the society’s legal and moral terms in jeopardy, he is not a threat and need not be persuaded by anyone. His thoughts, though motivated by a historical predicament, are his alone. The same is true for me. I, as a Hindu might highlight how my religion is superior to his, but in this matter, I will be clearly putting him in a state where I only ideate the better aspects of the religion, trying to show accuracy in the religion. From this standpoint, my persuasion would be intense and provocative, and also party-dependent. To establish my religious doctrine, I’ll outline the aspects of peace and love with people wanting a peaceful society, the aspects of violence and killings to people of such kind, and intelligence wouldn’t play much of a role in it as much as emotions would. If only I can manipulate those emotions, will I succeed in my attempt. Of course, here, I am disregarding the violent acts of religious persuasion like ISIS, evangelical Christian movements, or any other extreme religious realists. I am focused on the factor of intellectual means of persuasion. 

Belief systems tend to extend the domain of rationality. It is more of a comfort and faith people seek in. That’s where sympathy comes in. “Sympathy”, according to Cambridge dictionary is “an expression of understanding and care for someone else’s suffering”. To establish the thought of goodness in consistency with Godly attributes as a way to mitigate people’s suffering would be an act of intelligence but to make one ponder about the intensity of that thought cannot be done without sympathy. But this again, isn’t an absolute factor we are dealing with. To what degree a person holds his cognitive bias isn’t known. Likewise, the subjective reality of any issue for one individual will be and should be unique to his own. Of course, here, the reality seems two-fold, either he gets persuaded with my beliefs or not. But, again, while the result seems detrimental, we don’t know and simply don’t even care for the entire thought process of the person as long as he agrees. 

This sort of thinking of modern humans comes with the scientific growth of the past centuries, which an “intelligent” mind would follow. Our pursuit of the knowledge of society comes from scientific thinking, includes such laws, and according to Kant, is in sympathy with the mind and its cognitive operation. Can I persuade someone to think my religion is in sympathy of the vague idea of “knowledge of the world” whilst maintaining the scientific decorum of his mind? No.

Karl Popper stated that rigorous testing and objectivity are required since science cannot provide certain knowledge. Thomas Kuhn continued by stating that the dominant paradigm of a scientist always functions as a biased lens, filtering observation, and that the history of science, as a result, has been marked by abrupt shifts in views rather than an advancement toward more objective truths. Modern man is free of absolute values thanks to science, but the last bit of solid footing has also been eliminated (Johnston, 2017).

Our paradigm of reality and understanding it through a pre-set bias is a scientific fact. David Hume and Richard Dawkins both are intelligent by our means of standards. But, they have drastically opposite viewpoints. Hume believes that knowledge is acquired by empirical experiences alone, while Dawkins believes in the analysis of a radical set of information and data for the pursuit of knowledge. Both have their own reasons and claims, and persuade us with those examples that suit their principle. There’s no wrong way of thought in any of the principles, is there? No. I’d say it’s a matter of suitability. What is suitable at a given circumstance isn’t a factor of judging the value of an entire principle based on that.

My ability to persuade my friend to be a part of my religion or his inability to resist that isn’t a conclusive answer to what’s better. And, frankly, it isn’t even about a religion being better. Religion has never been about logical argument in the first place, it is mostly formulated by emotions, which are backed up by the scientific “idea” of any religion. So, even if I can’t persuade anyone, I have my own reasons for this belief system, which stands on the notion of perception and not conceptions. 

Belief doesn’t seek validity. I believe because I believe, and that is basically the reason. 


References:

1. Dürlinger, F., & Pietschnig, J. (2022, February 11). Meta-analyzing intelligence and religiosity associations: Evidence from the multiverse. PLOS ONE; Public Library of Science. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262699

2. Clifton, W. G. (2020, January 10). Making Sense of Sacrifice: An Interview with the High Priest of Gadhimai. ANIMAL PEOPLE FORUM. https://animalpeopleforum.org/2019/12/03/making-sense-of-sacrifice-an-interview-with-the-high-priest-of-gadhimai/ 

3. Llinas, J., & Rogova, G. L. (2016, January 1). Belief-Based Argumentation in Intelligence Analysis and Decision Making. Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39387-2_28

4. Vishkin, A., Bigman, Y., & Tamir, M. (2014). Religion, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being. Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8950-9_13 

5. Tarnas, R. (2010, October 31). The Passion Of The Western Mind. Random House.

6. Locke, J. (1967, November 2). Locke: Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press.

7. Locke, J. (1689, January 1). A letter concerning toleration [by J. Locke, tr. by W. Popple.].

8. Meister, C. V. (2014, January 1). Concepts of God/Ultimate Reality. Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314758_3 

9. Demanding the Ability to Live and Think Freely | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. (2023, February 2). https://richarddawkins.net/2023/02/demanding-the-ability-to-live-and-think-freely/ 

10. David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2019, April 17). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#PRel 

11. Carlström, C. (2020, January 2). “God’s word does not change as trends do” – contemporary discourses on homosexuality in Swedish Christianity. Theology & Sexuality, 26(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2020.1790988 

12. Daws, R. E., & Hampshire, A. (2017, December 19). The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict. Frontiers in Psychology; Frontiers Media. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191 

13. Johnston, D. (2017, March 27). Notes on Richard Tarnas’ “The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that have Shaped our World View#8221; David Johnston. https://www.davidbear.ca/the-evolution-of-consciousness/notes-on-richard-tarnas-the-passion-of-the-western-mind-understanding-the-ideas-that-have-shaped-our-world-view/ 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Submerged

It saw. In the platonic save, rose a rose, embedded with thorns,  shaking the road, breaking the roar, the pigeon screamed of peace, with white feathers— daunting, revealing, veiled with misery, and in the dead liberty. It screamed of peace, and it was shaken, given the nude clothing, cut through the scars, mutilated through the wars and bereaved  like an uncanny grief. Silent it stood, with the obscure of black obstinating  through the core.  And then in the abyss it stayed empty awake, peace was never an option. Yessing, guessing and dressing, sins of hopes, and dreams of hypocrisy, surprisingly wise, sublimely unwise, and when the trigger clicks, the rainfall, colors of transgression, a rainbow of just unjust, disrupts the ever scared sacred breath, just to tell it, the color white always gets the dirt quick! Like the monotonously pierce riot tearing the canvas, a humble silence breaking the crowd, cheers of life, applause of a beginning, the show began. The cage ...
Read more

11:11

I feel sad. I feel cold. As if something just ruptured my heart to endless pieces with a stick, I feel empty. Like a bare bottle lying around, like a crumpled sheet of paper, like a worn-out shoe and like the crusty leaf someone just stepped on. It's agonizing, you see, to be this fragile, to be this broken and to be this futile in the grand scheme of things. How could you do this? As the visuals of the car rushing into my bare skin haunts me every single day as I stand uptight, as the shower curtains slowly trap me in their whiteness to make me feel smothered, I don’t know how long someone can hold onto this numbness. But sometimes, yes sometimes, I do feel you, your warmth, the way you could always find happiness in life, and how I am no way between them and am far away hoping to be asleep. Please, let me sleep. I don’t want to do this anymore. There is no more hope left in me now, beloved, no more.  Don't lie to me anymore. Make this over. I’ll never be me again. Please, shu...
Read more

Snow

Image
How beautiful is the world outside me! The blue of the morning and the foggy afternoons I crave as I stare at the leafless trees drenched in vast nothingness, holding onto naked branches as they try their best to let go. Nature always has a say in the chaos, in the entropy of life and lifelessness, but it missed the human soul. In those shimmering lights from cars and buses, I see a foreshadowing of my own, with trembling fears and a scarred red, waiting silently for the lights to go green. It snowed, and I could sense that wet feeling of coldness on my skin. For once, I knew what cold feels like when it does not come from within. For once, I knew that there was something colder than me. For once, I wasn’t alone in this coldness, and for once, I felt happy. In the nights without jackets as I walked in the streets waiting for the coldness of the wind, I was reminded that there was lifelessness waiting for me. It was cold, it was what I needed. In those sweet shivers I felt with every br...
Read more

I hate sunrise

I remember nothingness as it seized my being into this voodoo doll of cascade of mourning smiles and loud silences. Walking to the mountains, clipping the fingernails with my teeth beside the campfire, the hollow stare at the white snow, the breeze of allegory of the stained flakes that pierced the sunshine the same way the abyss does to me. You see, I have always liked mountains for this scene. You see a sunrise; I see a murder. Who said sunrise was a beginning was perhaps a coward looking for hope. But the reality of existence is one of non-existence: one cannot fathom a sin of not living, and yet he lives a dead life every day. He is rotten with every sunrise. The depth of loneliness he feels in those bright black walls – all shining through his epiphanies and lifelessness – the closed eyes that see life more than the open ones, I am disgusted by everyone who calls darkness horrible. They don’t feel his honesty, they don’t feel his breathing beats and they don’t feel the rusty smile...
Read more

Ghost

 I remember the summer night with me on the stairs wishing,  wishing I could let go of you and see you past that door of epiphany, but I stood there holding your arms. I couldn't set you free.  As I look around running cars now,  a trepidation slithers through me. I see you in front of them --- your shallow, hollow figure  caressing the cold with your bare hands, smiling at the unknown and I pass to you --- through you because you look beautiful. Nah, you look happy.  In the rain, as my wet self walks around in its adventure, I see your hope piercing my heart  questioning my silent epitaph and feeling so grotesque.  I lie down, in those desolate muddy roads and cars pass by me, but I am strangely still there.  I see you asking me for a cup of coffee. I see you explaining functions to me.  I see you.  But this happiness that arrives with you,  my dear, I can't take it anymore.  Don't corrupt me, please.
Read more