Religion In A Clubby Hole

Is it only the Abrahamic religion that is worth discussing? After all there are more than half the world`s population that do not follow the Abrahamic religion. What are their thoughts on the subject matter? Are they even worth considering?

Maybe not. Since most of the interactors on this Chowk come from one specific geography and that is all they know, and that is all they can discuss.....Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Why?

The writer of this article is Parthasarathy B, who is probably not from the Abrahamic religion. Why can we not learn something from other`s religion? Will that increase our knowledge and hence understanding about others?

Respectfully submitted,

``We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. ``

typical hindu on chowk: throw pearls of wisdom on others religion, ignores his own (unless the Church of the Yellow Rabbit refers to the Church of the Elephant Man).

behram: i think this guy needs a gana.

Agreed with the above.

One should not confuse God with Religion. God is a destination, Religion is a path to that destination. God was, God is and God will be irrespective of whether the religions existed in the past or shall remain in the future.

Many people when look at the problems or frictions between various religions tend to negate the existence of God Himself. As if God is responsible for all these problems. No we human are.

In the modern world of today , religions (which are a set of rituals, practices ,customs and traditions) are losing relevance.Agreed. But one should tend to make God irrelevant.

The post No. 19 below should be read as the reply to Post No.3 by Zeena ...Sorry.

The post No. 19 below should be read as the reply to Post No.3 by Zeena ...Sorry.

The article represents one sided view.

Let us forget religions, God, science etc. as told to us by others and let us explore the whole thing ourselves.

Nobody will have any doubts that we live in two worlds. One is the outside world which we see and feel. And a much bigger world resides inside us which we also ``see`` and ``feel``. Thats is the world of our thoughts. No doubt the world inside is much more beautiful than the world outside us. We have full control over the inside world and no control over the outside world.

According to science, we can ``see`` and ``feel`` both the worlds because of ``conciousness``. The level of conciousness is the highest in humans and the zero in dead substance like stone, soil, sand etc. If we move further apply science to this thinking, then we have the concept of ``Planes``. The outside world is the ``Physical Plane`` and the inside world is the ``Mental Plane``. The physical plane is common for all of us i.e. everyone sees it in the same way whereas the mental plane is different for different persons.

Many persons particularly saints,sages etc. say that another third plane exists with in us. This plane is not very conspicious but it does exist when one tries to find it. Thats one part. The second part is all human feel the same when on this plane third plane. This plane of conciousness is called the ``Spritual Plane``. The learned men claim that you cannot sense or feel God in the first two planes i.e. physical and mental plane because God is beyond all human senses. But God can be felt at the spritual plane.

Now how do we find our Spritual Plane?? Two Religions of the world i.e. Hinduism and Christianity talk about this spritual plane but for rest of the religions, I am not very sure.

According to Hindusim, the Spritual Plane can be found if you renounce this material world i.e. you have to leave the physical plane at the first instance. This is done by leaving the world, going to mountains and wilderness etc. The second step is to renounce the Mental Plane. This is done after one has achieved the first step of renouncing the world. To renounce the mental plane, you have to control your thoughts through continous meditation , alone in a far off tranquil palce where nothing disturbes you. Once you have left the mental plane, they say you enter into the Spritual Plane, where you can feel the presence of God. Many people who have undertaken this journey through ages have informed of the same experiences which has lead common people into the belief of God.

Christianity works on the other principle. It says to find the spritual plane you dont have to renounce the world but you should leave your comfortable life and start living and working for the poor, the sick, the diseased and the needy. If you devote your life for these people( like Mother Teresa) you will reach the spritual plane where you can feel the presence of God(it is said).

The moral is either we should believe others who have ``felt`` God, like most of the people do. If we have any doubts than instead of debating the matter we should take steps to find it ourselves by discovering the so-called ``Spritual Plane``.

bolta_aaina

Of course, that kind of spirituality is not unique to Christianity and Hinduism.

Even so, science does not come in conflict with man`s spiritual experience. It runs up against dogma. And most religion is more dogma than spiritualism.

RawDust #16:

{{that i believe was Richard Dawkins}}

You are right. Have you located the mother lode? I was being intentionally coy because I wanted to see how many other people had read him. In a way, I’m disappointed that you were the one to come up with his name. Most likely it’s because you’re the only person who reads my diatribes through to the bitter end :-).

soysauce #13

{{fine effort}}

Thanks for being diplomatic :-).

{{don`t you think Marx may have meant opiate as in drugged, feeling-good state of mind?}}

It’s very likely that Marx used opiate in just the sense of tranquilizer, anodyne, palliative, etc., and I considered this while composing my screed. However, Marx wrote at a time when Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had not yet been published, or at any rate its potential scope had not yet been understood; and even the germ theory of disease was still controversial. We know much better one-and-a-half centuries after the age of Marx and Darwin, and ought not to give up the additional insights that we can gain with relatively little effort. My reproach is directed not at Marx but rather at people today who unthinkingly recycle ‘opiate of the masses’ when ‘viruses of the mind’ is just as evocative and far more accurate.

soysauce #14

{{Religions are here to stay.}}

Religions are clearly long-lasting phenomena in human civilization. My best guess is that this is so because they have co-evolved down the ages with the human species and human cultures. They function as meme complexes that parasitise individual human minds and thereby colonise the mindspace of human civilizations. The most successful of today’s religions, in terms of mindshare, are grizzled entrenched survivors, superbly adapted to their hosts, adept at maintaining an environment hospitable to their propagation and continued success.

It is quite possible that at least some of the dictums of religion, or of a specific religion, are ‘true’ in some sense. They might even be ‘beneficial’ in certain contexts. They might provide individuals with a route to serenity and with guidance towards ‘right’ or prudent action. Religious experience is likely an epiphenomenon of the human mind, which in turn is firmly rooted in the human body. It is therefore quite likely that different human individuals, even from widely separated civilizations, might have similar religious or quasi-religious experiences – epiphanal visions, ‘revelations’, out-of-body experiences, hallucinations, etc. A scientific, i.e. systematic, approach to these things ought to be feasible, and used carefully and sensitively it might well enrich human lives. In this respect religious experience may be quite similar to sex, which, again, is inextricably intertwined with human civilization.

However neither ‘truthfulness’, nor working in the ‘interests’ of the host organism, are requirements for the success of a particular brand of religion., at least not in the short or medium run. Religious beliefs spread, thrive, persist, and outcompete others, through a brutal game of numbers – fitness to survive, in the particular context of gaining and preserving mindshare, is the only thing that matters for ‘success’.

This vulnerability to parasitising of the human species by mind-viruses is an unavoidable side-effect of something essential to the survival of the human species, namely the programmability, educability, susceptibility to indoctrination or brainwashing, of human minds, particularly the minds of children. It is exactly analogous to cellular life’s susceptibility to viral infection, as an unavoidable consequence of the use of nucleic acid, and associated cellular machinery, to encode, replicate, and execute the programs necessary for life.

If there is a way to partially control mind-virus infection, so that religious ideas remain slaves rather than masters of human beings, it probably lies in the same direction as that of childhood immunization against infectious diseases; with the immune mechanism for mind-viruses lying in the human mind’s capacity for self-awareness. This is likely to be as unsatisfactory and incomplete a defence against mind viruses as current immunization schemes are against nucleic acid based viruses.

{{One needs to delineate these things to better appreciate what one is dealing with.}}

Amen to that.

AlephNull

Your comment to Raw_Dust led me to read your `diatribe` in # 25 :)

Do you know if anyone has analyzed/published the range of co-evolutionary strategies adopted by different `religious` meme complexes. That study could lead to some fascinating insights about the past and predictions about the future.

The writer opines ``Religion is dangerous. Too often it finds itself on the front page - directly or indirectly linked to violence, crimes, drugs, rape and wars. Too many wars have been fought about religion ``

Indeed ``religion is dangerous``. But so is gun. Depending on how you use it, it can kill your enemy, your friend, or yourself.

But since author has been very simplistic in his analysis in coming to the conclusion that ``too many wars have been fought about religion``, let me offer him that too many wars have been fought on material wealth too. Why not get rid of materialism so that americans will no longer feel the need to attack an oil rich country just to steal its oil? WW I & II were also fought mostly on economics than on religion. Civil War of 1860 was not scripture based either - but rather on the economics of keeping slaves and state rights etc

Since author is making religion the main culprit of wars in the hopes that religious people leave religions and join ``science``, I was wondering if the author would leave his material wealth if I were to show him that most of the wars in the last 500 years have been fought on economics than on religion. And even if religion was used in some wars in the last 500 years, it was mostly as a propaganda tool to whip up the masses - much like the current invasion of Iraq which according to evangelist lense is paving the way for the second coming of Christ (rather than easy access to oil).

So my challenge to author: Put up or shut up. We have had enough of pseudo-intellectualism. Tell us: would you leave your material wealth if I prove to you that materialism played a bigger role in wars than religion??

Re: # 23

I dont know why science and religion should be comprared or juxtaposed. They should run independently. We need both. We need science and we need religion. So far science has been able to answer the questions like ``what`` and ``how`` but it has not been able to answer ``why`` or ``what for``. Religions tend to answer these questions through the medium of God. Now the question ``Why are we here`` is answered as ``Because God is there``. The answer `Because God is there`` is much much better than ``We dont know`` or ``We are trying to find out`` or something.

Yes I agree that there are certain aspects of religions which are questionable. They have been questioned in the past and they will be questioned in the future. But we should keep in mind that religions get reformed also. Let us say that Islam is going through a particular phase. Did it always like this? No. And it will also not remain the same. It will change rather it will change its course. The things which are not practical or feasible for a particular time are shunned by the religions and those portions which are relevant are pursued.

So do not get confused between science and religion. Also do not mix the both. See them as different paths and let there be no conflict betnween them.

By the way( for my knowledge) can you give any reference of something in any of the religions you know which has been proved wrong by science. Because, no such thing comes in my mind atleast.

You are generalizing to all religion without substantial proof. Science and religion are not opposites. The methods of science are very effective and can be used to pick out truth from falsehood, in all areas of knowledge including religion, see http://www.rationalreality.com

Religions are the toys God has given Man, so as he does not disturbs him, unneccerrily.

Man are needed to run this Universe, they must be prepared accordingly, with proper
training .... so to God it does not really matters , which religion One follows, If the Man has achieved the required Level or preparededness , he is worthy for Him, Otherwise he could just end up as a fuel , for the consumption .

Religion provided a broad guide lines , for the Man to prepare, each group following a particular religion then has made innovations according to thier Understanding, even the suppossedly Abrahimic Religion with BOOKS or Manuals for preparation.

God in the mean time was fed up with all the squabling , so he irritatingly told Man, that after Mohammed , he is on his own,.... and won`t get any further official guidance from him
the Last book is the Last manual, for this preparations....... so take it of leave it.....
and is not really bothered..... its only when the quality of product he gets ... gets below standard ... he subtly intervenes... like fine tuning ..... and then leaves them as they are..

In the Mean while , whenever he need More Fuel to run his Universe, he just puts his spoon down and fishes up ..... some millions from the earth.... ... and for Us ordinary mortals ..... his spoon appears in forms of tsunami...... Earth Quake.....etc..etc.....
where along with the Prepared one and the Unprepared one all end up .... at his end...
indiscriminatley........
And Man then here on earth raises question ..... why the Innocent..... why the children...
why the good one.... ..what wrong had they done.....???......to die such a death....


My two cent worth of crude Understanding...

#18

What support is there for a movement to outlaw indoctrination of minors? Anyone caught taking a child to a mosq should be fined for brainwashing (for a first offence, subsequently have their children taken into care). And why does a society so keen on child protection allow a religious community to physically mutilate children below the age of consent?

No baptism, no poonal, no circumcision for under 18`s?

Any takers? I bet it would be just as popular as a smoking ban! ... and in the end lead to a populace better able to think for itself.

Apparently my PREVIOUS attempt was not able to stir up much emotion in most chowkies.

Therefore.. here is the appeal again..

I know of this young man Hafeez. He is a bonafide victim whose family is out on the road. Please send him the little you can ...

I have already checked the following (Considering chowkie sensibilities):

1- He has NO political affiliation

2- He has NO Jehadi/Islamist affiliation

3- He is a hardworking law-abiding citizen of the AJK who is working in Lahore as a guard/chowkidar + office boy for lowly pay.

4- He lost some of his family and ALL of his worldly belonging.


PLEASE - please -please help.

You know where to contact me.