There is a propensity among certain individuals to be dismissive of religion and considering the abuses of religion throughout history, this should not be a surprise. Voltaire, the father of The Age of Reason began his fateful path in response to the corruption of religion and the monarchical governments of his day. But the thing is, in respect to religion, it wasn't religion that was abusive and corrupt, it was the human element who were the representatives of religion who were well entrenched within the hierarchy of their religion imbuing them with power over others that were corrupt.
Five hundred years after the birth of the Age of Reason(AoR), there are two perhaps three schools of thought that maintain a dismissive attitude towards religion. The first is the Atheist, who for the most part are quite vocal about their dismissiveness of religion and use the failings of religion as evidence of their belief that there is no god.It is a fallacious argument for it assumes wrongly about religion, especially the panoply of religions, for to them, so many religions, allegedly each saying that they are the one true religion over all others is proof for their belief for it raises the question; which god is the one true god? This is a question that is reactive at best, suggestive of emotionalism and also seems to reveal a deep ignorance of the finer points of all these religions that actually reveal a common thread.
More than thirty years ago, as a young man I toyed with this question regarding which is the one true religion. I stepped back from my own religious upbringing and looked at these religions from outside the box of belief and concluded that since none stuck out from the others that either they were all true or that they were all false. If one religion is true then they all must be true, and conversely, if one was false then they were all false for there truly was very little beyond the cultural wrappings of these religions that were different. I must confess, at that time I was quite unknowing, that my perspective of these religions was superficial at best and my religious education at that time would be best described as being a trite exoteric literal Protestantism. Feeling a need to choose one side or the other I decided to flip a coin and decided that they were all false and that there is no god. How wrong I was in my assumption, but then again, I probably needed to be wrong first so that I could later find the truth.To be found one must first be lost.
The second school of thought is the New Age, it seems to be born of loose threads and while it rejects the dogma and rigidity of orthodox religion, it seems to function much the same creating leaders and followers. It promotes a slew of self help pseudoisms in a pretentious search of satisfying the ego and was largely born of the "me" generation of the 60s and the 70s. They may or may not believe in a god, tend to be solipsistic and focused on manifesting material wealth as if it could have any benefit to them spiritually. While there are some good self help books out there the notion that manifesting wealth will make one happy has to be one of the most superfluous and wrong headed beliefs out there. A lot of New Age material has a basis in truth and has connections to ancient cultures, but is presented in a manner that makes such truths difficult if not impossible to discern. The idea that certain emotions such as sadness, grief, anger etc are always negative is mistaken for there are healthy versions of these emotions and there are unhealthy versions, it all depends on whether one's experience with these emotions is conscious or not. For them their dismissiveness of religion is rooted in their rejection of its rigid dogma, but much like the atheist, they are, in my opinion, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The third group are religious people themselves who dismiss all other religions but their own. They may tolerate other's beliefs, but deep down in their hearts they erroneously believe their religion is the one true religion; such is the way of ego. There is no rhyme or reason for their conclusion as it is largely based on 'blind faith'. Even their knowledge of their own religion is pretty much determined by the religion's elites and past onto them by their priests, ministers, bishops, etc. They are told what to think and what to believe and kept in a heightened state of fear that they will spend eternity suffering the torments of hell for simply being born into this world. Ignorance is the bliss taught the Vatican, and of course, we know that knowledge is power.
K.I.P
Though I took a path determined by a coin toss, I knew deep down inside that I was not being honest with myself regarding what I truly believed, for I did/do feel a profound connection to the universe, to our planet, to all life, to the sun in its glorious arc and the artistry of a sunset/rise. I would commune with nature, converse with the animals of all sizes and sat beneath many a tree seeking its wisdom. nurtured through it being a silent observer all that went on around it in the hundred or so years of its existence.
Some years later when my young son asked me if there was a god, I took the reasonable rational position of ambivalence. I told that some people believe in god and some people do not believe in god and neither side is capable of proving their position to the other. I told him that it would be up to him to decide if he believed there is a god. My wife on the other hand who was a former Jehovah's Witness barked at him that there was no god. If asked today I would add that I do believe that there is a god, but that no single religion has got it right, that in fact, most of, if not all these religions, have seriously failed god. I would tell him that god is not some anthropomorphic reflection of humanity, is not sitting in judgement of you for your sins(no such thing) and will be probably best understood as a mathematical formula such as an algorithm.
Why hasn't one single religion got god right? Basically because, god in Its infinite wisdom saw the folly of sharing It's knowledge with just one group of humans, being as how frail they are mentally and how out of control their egos can get. So, god distributed It's knowledge throughout all the religions of man. An analogy for this that I like to use is to compare god's word to that of a pure white light and that the realm of man is 3 dimensional therefore much like a prism and when the white light of god's word struck the prism of our existence it refracted into the many hues of the rainbow and each hue represents a religion.Even a cursory look reveals many similarities in the mythologies of the various prophets as well in their teachings. Born of a virgin, crucified to atone for man's sins, performed many identical miracles and the list goes on. And they all taught simple moral codes as well as concepts such as love, forgiveness, compassion, humility, etc.Go even deeper into the esoteric understanding of religion and what is revealed is a mystical thread of continuity that weaves a fabric of truth binding all these religious beliefs together.
Religion, from the Latin, religare, which means to bind or to form a union.
Yoga from Sanskrit literally meaning union.
I mentioned earlier the similarities in the mythologies of many prophets regardless of their space time position, , that in fact these prophets were the personification of sun worship(among other things to be discussed later), Jesus, Mithra, Ra, Osiris, Baldar, Indiri, Quetzalcoatl, Zoroaster, etc. In certain circles, this leads individuals to conclude that these religions borrowed from each other and that the lack of originality is evidence enough to dismiss religion and belief in god altogether. While that is one interpretation, it is one that I do not agree with largely because many of these religions had no contact with the others being as they were separated by centuries and thousands of miles of ocean. If anything, these consistencies prove profoundly that there is something very worthwhile contained within the scriptures but it shall not be revealed with a shallow literal understanding of the scripture. There is no denying of the abuses of the churches that arose around these prophets, but that too reveals not a failing of god or of the prophets and their message, but a failing of man and his ego. The justification for the abuses committed simply because someone did not agree with their dogma is clearly the product of man's ego running amok and does not reflect on the existence of god unless your understanding of god is a shallow literal understanding.
The truth of religion is not found by dismissing them, it is found by binding them together in union through the threads of commonality, the stories, the symbolism that are woven between them. And to truly understand the thread of truth woven through the rainbow fabric that is all religions, one has to seek the original meanings of the words within the ancient texts to which all the abusive organizations that dominated the scriptures have corrupted or simply just lost touch with the original meaning thereby confusing the Truth with a political agenda and a desire for material wealth and power.
It is a fair thing to say that the vast majority of humanity believe in some sort of god and feel that their life should have some sort of purpose; that throughout the history of mankind, humanity has sought answers to the whys and the wherefores of the natural world as well as their own existence. Over the last two millenniums, our understanding of the natural world has evolved and changed and we have even developed a means in understand the natural world and it is called the 'Scientific Principle' and while not entirely perfect, it is the best method we have and for the most part works quite well. So, why is it that religion has not evolved in a similar manner? Basically because religion wants to 'bind' its believers to a single doctrine that is based entirely on blind faith and if it is understanding that you seek, it will not be found from within the confines of a dogmatic belief system. But from out of the box of any one religion we can utilize the scientific principle in understanding the words, language and symbolism of the writers of ancient texts and develop a conclusion that is not limited to any one belief but involves the vast majority of beliefs from around the world and throughout all time.
No comments:
Post a Comment