Dear Readers,
I am not against religion per se. What I oppose is a misunderstanding of religion - which is why I have no sympathy for those who are religious fanatics or atheists who refuse to acknowledge the benefits of religion.
Why we can’t take religious text in the literal sense
People who lived at least 100 years ago don’t see the world the way we today see it. Time changes things. Our historical situation, psychological make up, natural disposition, individual experiences: these are some factors that influence our understanding of the world and ourselves. Understanding is interpreting. Seeing is interpreting. Reading religious texts is an act of interpretation. A word, a phrase, gets its meaning through its relationships with other words and phrases. ‘Freedom’: what does that word mean to a Muslim, Christian, fundamentalist, atheist, individualist, socialist, capitalist? That meaning of a word derives its historical relevance within a network of other words. That network is the general outlook of the world. The network shifts though time and history. There was never a time that it stood still. Conclusion: It is impossible for everybody to agree on one definite interpretation of the Koran or the Bible.
Creating God in our image
To say that God is angry and jealous and all merciful and all forgiving and is one who somehow plays favorites with those who submit to him completely and wholeheartedly is a mere projection of the powerful people in society. It is an anthropomorphic description of God. Anything that you project on to something that is not you, is not what it is. It’s what you would want it to be. For many of us, it’s the only way we know how to relate to some being we feel to be beyond us. But, what it is, it surely is not what we want to believe it to be.
Atheism: the good and the bad
To learn something from atheism is a way of being critical of one’s attitude towards God and religion. Atheism puts the mirror in front of you. It is that window pane of the Johari windows that tells you what others see in and about you that you are not aware of yourself. If you believe that there’s something about you that you are not aware of then you shouldn’t think or believe that you have all the right answers. This is not the same thing as self doubt. Self doubt is an inability to believe or to be confident in whatever you have to say. Self criticism, on the other hand, implies that you have the courage to look yourself in the mirror, with the hope that you can better yourself.
Atheism tells you that you created God (or, whatever being you emulate or worship) in your own image. Atheism reveals the contradiction in your belief in an all good God, who at least allows evil to exist, the amount of evil to be inflicted on innocent women, children and men. Atheism, in other words, tells you that there is something seriously wrong about your notion of God.
Atheism has its faults, too. It does not distinguish your notion of God from God himself. That’s because atheism treats them as being one and the same. There is a difference between a notion of X and X itself. Atheists couldn’t get themselves to admit that these two are to be treated separately, otherwise they would have to acknowledge X, or, in this case, God’s independent existence.
How to approach religious (or, spiritual) texts
I have no problem with people believing in a god. It’s their right, and I respect that. But, I will never approach such a being in an anthropomorphic way. That is why I do not pray for favors. I will not pray for a victory over my enemy at his expense. I find it utterly stupid for both enemies to pray to their gods for the destruction of the other. Those who pray to bend the will of their gods to theirs are guilty of idolatry. That’s what idolatry is essentially about. And, anthopomorphism, you could say, is a form of idolatry.
I also have no problem with people wanting to be atheists. It’s their right. But, I will never be one with them in declaring that there’s nothing good about religion. There is certainly something valuable to learn from reading religious or spiritual texts. It teaches one to acknowledge a presence that transcends our puny egos. So, ultimately, it comes down to this:
Really, what do we humans know? What could we get a handle on?
Socrates once said that one should not try to change the other. It is terribly difficult and next to impossible especially if the other resists change. The best and simplest way is to improve yourself. And, in my opinion, religious texts should be approach with the intention of improving one’s self.
Religious texts teach you how to relate to the other; but in order to relate to the other in an ethical way, you must set out to improve yourself. This requires a lot of understanding, reflecting, being engaged in a dialogue with the other, and critical thinking.
It does not matter whether you believe in a god. But, if you do decide to hang on to your belief in a god, then you ought to do so with the intention and the determination to improve one’s self. Also, if you do decide to not believe in a god, then realize it’s useless to waste time and energy criticizing religion. If your intention is to show that it’s wrong to kill people in the name of religion, then improve yourself.
If people begin to see that you are a good person, and have no intention of turning them into what you want them to be for yourself, then, maybe, just maybe, they will change.
With that, I will stop writing about religion.
With that, I will stop writing about religion.
