this next post is provoked by and dedicated to my man brian hale. he has been my boy since high school and remains one of my favorite people alive. his comment on my last post raises two important questions: 1) is there hope, meaning, and/or love without religion? and 2) would the world be BETTER if people followed their religion fully?
to answer the first question we must reckon with the idealogical presupposition that it is religion that gives us these characteristics of life on this planet. that is a notion i am not sure i agree with. without going fully into the historical evolution of religion, i think it suffices to say that love and hope and meaning have developed as necessary and common characteristics to all humans, regardless of religion. what i mean is, our life on this planet has prompted and created these as necessary for survival. i am not saying religion has not played a part in fostering these, but i am saying that religion is not necessary to obtain them. frankly, one does not have to believe in a higher power or spirutal being(s) to find love and hope. there are many things in this life that provide these for us. many anti-religious people are very happy while many devout religionists are miserable and vice versa. therefore, the issue is not religion, it's the personal lot and makeup of each individual that promotes these characteristics. our psychological makeup, demeanor, personality, location, ethnicity, social status, financial situation, etc. often determine whether or not we find hope and love and satisfaction in this life. when people look at celebrities and say things like, "well their probably not happy," that is too general and is often christian propaganda to make us not crave the life they have. in actuality, many celebrities are very happy and make whatever choice the want to insure this state of being. at the end of the day, give a person some meaningful work with significant money and meaningful love with significant sex and i bet that person has all the hope and meaning they need in this life.
as to the second question, i think the world would be BETTER with no religion. because religion is usually the greatest enemy of free-thinking and has often been the enemy of true moral progress. the freedoms we enjoy today are not because of religion, rather in spite of it. for example, christians argued FOR slavery with the bible and if it wasn't for liberal lovers of humanity multiple ethnic groups would still be enslaved, all in the name of God. the tenents of most religions are harmful. those terrorists on 9/11 thought they were doing god a favor. the pilgrims killed amer-indians because of the manifest destiny from god that this new land was the promised land and we had to destroy the inhabitants just like the Isralites did after the exodus. at the end of the day, religion is a mixed bag at best, just like real life. there is no black and white answer, but gazing at the history of religion, the scales tip against it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you lost me after "idealogical presupposition". Trevor, you gotta post on some lighter stuff, because I know I'm not going to win any arguments. What are you doing for Super Bowl? We're going to the same guys house as last year if you guys want to come, you're more than welcome 122in of screen baby! Oh, and maybe it would've been different if I lived back then, but neither slavery or killing (in the name of:sidebar:rage song just came in my head) would have seemed like moral choices. Now are you arguing against the institute of religion or what the Bible says? Because I would agree with you on what religion has done wrong.
I loved when Don Miller set up the confession booth at that college and then confessed all of Christianity's sins to the people who came in (Blue Like Jazz).
ummm, right, religion. But there are extreme religious cults and there are balanced people within religions. It's my goal, and hopefully there are others out there who agree, to fall within the balanced area of my faith-- open to thoughts and ideas outside my comfort zone, willing to challenge thoughts and Christian beliefs I grew up with to gain a better understanding of people and cultures and reduce the many prejudices I have.
And love outside of religion? No doubt. It's just that a religious background offers a definition which probably differs from an agnostic or atheistic definition of love. And I'm hoping that the religious definition can be understood in a more enduring fashion... there IS a difference.
Post a Comment