Religion, Perspectives and Balance

Religion never fails to be an endless tea time chat (debate?) topic.

I shall go straight to the point. To clarify the misconceptions most people have of me, i am not an atheist, nor am i someone out to destroy faith. I'm just uncomfortable when people believe so much in faith that they sacrifice other just as important aspects of their lives, and thinking, one important aspect being the ability to self question and self reflect.

The mentor and the horny junior raised an important point today during the heated discussion over religion, which had laid neglected due to all the heated feelings. To put it simply, what is important is anything, not jus religion, is to be open minded, and also, when impressing views upon others, take caution not to become what you preach against.

First, on the topic of a balanced view, which essentially requires an open mind. As the horny junior mentioned, when one dabbles in science, when one believes the knowledge provided by science, one must be ready to accept any challenge and be open minded to it. For what is true now may not be true forever, just like how classic Newtonian physics cannot apply to the sub atomic level when Einsteinian physics can, and how scientists are now trying to devise the GUT, the Grand Unified Theory that is applicable to physics on the macro and micro levels. The truth of the world is always changing, and a real scientist can accept new truths, as long as they have been refuted, and even before that, be open to discussion of the validity of present truths. This way of thinking ensures that you are always ready to question your own beliefs, improve them and not overly rely on them to run your life, unlike that of closed minds, whose beliefs are so fixed, that any questioning is seen as an attack. These people are the ones who will suffer the most when the tenets of their beliefs are proven wrong, when situations arise to force them to question themselves.

Somehow, the semitic religions seem to produce the most people who hold extreme views about their own religion. Somehow, the situation in this society is such that a significantly large number of people, especially converts, are totally immersed in religion to the extent of no longer able to question themselves. These people somehow are able, although with all the unanswered questions that begged to be asked of the religion, to believe wholeheartedly in it. This is obvious when they give weak retorts and answers to questions such as my Epicurus's riddle, and even simple questions as to where do dinosaurs fit in the Bible. I wonder as to what causes this. Maybe in the affluence, yet estranged and detached society we live in, the lonely city life, many feel compelled to believe in something that they think will always be there for them, yet because most don't experience what is called real hardship and struggling for survival, they end up with kinda "naive" thoughts that the god they believe so much in is incomprehensible and always right, maybe because they have not experienced a situation that forces them to work more for themself instead of using time to pray for a change in their situation. The psychological aspect as to why people can entrust their lives to something unproven with tangible evidence so much, that the concept of questioning disappears.

To me, the ability of question is one significant difference that we have from animals, and is an aspect of what defines each of us. If lost, what difference is one from a puppet? A puppet of god maybe? That is not to say that everyone should give up faith, but faith and a sense of self have to coexist. For instance, i admire the friendly giant's ability to question his faith, as do i agree with the recent news article about buddhists being asked to question their faith in the teachings by monks themselves, and not take everything at face value, especially under pressure to conform, or just purely being influenced and attracted by the promised benefits of a certain faith that exceeds others. Without such ability to question, aren't these people so easy to manipulate? In that sense, terrorists, radical extremists are much like that. They can immerse themselves to the extent that they believe fully what they are told, what a book that has been passed down generations, and before that by word of mouth (therefore subjecting itself to highly possible corruption of information) says, and hence sacrifice their young lives for a cause that is ordered upon them by another of higher authority. What good does it do the world to take innocent lives with them? Questioning also is a form of self protection, simply because when you are open to discussion, many alternate perspectives are presented. With these, one can view the world not in a tunnel vision manner but from a bird's eye view. When one can question himself, he indoubtly has an ego (a sense of self, that is) an identity, rather than just another minion of a higher authority. When truth changes, he will be able to adapt. A stiff oak tree trunk breaks in a gust and dies, but a willow bends over and springs back when winds come and go. Which survives longer?

Ultimately i reiiterate, i am not a proponent for the abolishment of religion, just that i believe that faith cannot be the single force that rules a person's identity, faith has to coexist with the ability to question, and hence giving rise to an ability to perform and credit successes to oneself, giving the necessary confidence one needs to persist in the world, instead of remaining in a semi hypnotic state that believes that everything he does is willed by god. Everything is god's plan, good or bad. What cannot be understood is not meant for one to understand. That in itself is the lamest and weakest answer i have ever heard.

Next, when we chide others for certain things, do we make sure that we ourselves are not examples of the vice that we chide others for? The example that arose today was the imposition of one's view on religion on the other, seemingly trying to force the other party to accept the view. Then when the first party declares that others should not impose religious views upon him, does he remember that he was in his own way doing the exact same thing? When one declares that he has an open mind, is he consistent for all topics? This is something worth considering the next time we chide others, and impose upon them views. The mentor said, "have you become the thing you detest most?" When we ask others not to believe in something, we ourselves are actually believing hard in another thing, so what right do we have to make others not believe in a certain cause? After all the difference between sharing your view and imposing your views is but hairline thin. Actually, there might not even be any lines, but a gradient from black to white.

The last thing i'd like to mention is the concept of balance. For now, let's leave any rebuttals that i am trying to impose my views aside. I just feel that everyone, especially those who believe so deeply into something, can take this with an open mind. Everything in life, as i have mentioned before in an earlier post, lies on a continuum, and not just two sides, such as either right or wrong, good or evil. The concept of being able to question comes in very strongly here. I shall use religion as an example. Believing and not believing in faith is also a continuum, being grey at the centre. When one inclines towards one side, totally believing in the religion word for word, he is in fact having a closed mind, not unlike a rejectionist, someone afraid of change and differences. He insists without evidence that he is always right in the belief he holds so dear, rejecting all other perspectives. What will happen to that person then, if the end that he is on is chopped off? he will fall into the abyss, no chance to return. The person who questions both ends, what many people dismiss as sitting on the fence, actually allows the person to clearly see both sides of the fence. If you choose the ends, you can only have on side to yourself but miss seeing the other side of the fence. Atop the fence, you see both sides, this constitutes an open mind.

So i say to all, atheists, or devout believers, take a step back and look at the larger picture, learn from the scientist and be open to discussion. Don't give arguments that make no real sense, such as "it was meant for us not to understand it" or "it is bad to believe in it". Discuss and establish yourself safely in the centre of the continuum, or at least somewhere near that, so that whatever hits, you can bend and be like the willow.