Religion: Some Thoughts
By Phil Morrison
The most common reason people belong to a certain
religion is because of family tradition or cultural
heritage. People tend to stay in that religion because
they're generally more comfortable with familiar
customs and practices or they are influenced by
people who are proponents of that religion; further
search is thus discouraged.
The teachings or scriptures of any religion validate
that religion for its members. To use those same
scriptures, as many of us do, to convince nonmembers
of that validity may not have the same effect because
the credibility given to those scriptures is not the
same as for a member. When adherents of a certain
faith say that their spiritual book contains
unrefutable truth, that may be so; however,
semantics, context, relativity and interpretation
of the giver, receiver and translator of the readings
should be considered.
If the common foundation of most religions is what
we call God, then we would expect the purpose
of those religions to be Godly, which they seem to
be in that they teach love, peace, high moral
standards, prayer, the sanctity of family, etc.
The differences among the various religions seem
to be in their daily practices or social customs such
as the Sabbath, clergy, marriage, role of women,
diet, burial, divorce, etc. These social teachings are,
for the most part, based on the message given by
the founder of each religion or author of its holy book
or books. The station of the founder is usually
considered by that religion's membership to be
higher than the major figures of other religions.
Here, again, is where its own holy book is used to
justify or verify that contention. If we are already
believers in that claim, and that religion, it is easy
to find passages in its holy book to support our
belief but even statements that appear to be
unambiguous deserve serious scrutiny when
seeking knowledge, paying particular attention to
context. An example of the type of context I'm
referring to may be when a mother tells her small
child to stay away from the hot stove because the
child could get burned if it is too close.
The same mother may tell an older child about the
benefits of the stove as in cooking or providing
warmth. In one context, the stove represents
something bad and in the other something good,
so, depending on what I want to emphasize, I
can extract from "the mother's writings" that the
stove is either good or bad.
The development and understanding of a human
being from childhood to adulthood may be
compared to the development of humanity.
A young child does not understand advanced English,
so the adult speaks to that child in terms she
or he understands. By the same token, humankind
in the past was underdeveloped as well (we had
no knowledge that the earth was round nor did we
have the ability to travel as we do today, etc.). That
being the case, it would stand to reason that an
all-knowing God would impart information relative
to the comprehension of the people of that time period.
Consider this as a possible approach that God
might use to spread His message (which we call religion).
Let's compare it to our educational system whereby
information given to the first grade students is more
simple and in a language less difficult than the
second or higher grades. In a religious context, the
teachers (i.e. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha,
Krishna, etc. ) may have had equal knowledge but
they only imparted what was appropriate or digestible
for the times, condition, and area in which they had
appeared. If we accept this as God's plan, then it
would mean that all people of all religions can look at
all the divine teachers as equal and receiving their
teachings from the same source with no religion
being exalted over the other. That could have a
unifying effect as far as religion is concerned
(although one may ask why in Christianity, for example,
are there so many denominations when there
is only one Christ?). The above scenario might
bring about a challenge to the person who claims to
be the most recent of God's messengers because his or
her message could make the more established
religions, particularly clergy, feel threatened or at least
uncomfortable. The reason being that the latest of
God's teachings purportedly would have been more
relevant to contemporary society. Historically,
of course, there have been spiritual teachers whose
teachings have met with opposition, but they endured
and formed the foundations for several great
civilizations. The decline of a civilization could be
the time when a new divine teacher appears with
regenerative, practical guidelines for a new era.
Thus God's cyclical plan would be perpetuated.
What I have just put forth may or may not have a
ring of logic to it; however, realistically most people
do not approach religion logically or by using their
heads but via the heart or emotions. As alluded to
previously, if you've belonged to a certain religion
since birth, you are generally emotionally attached
to that religion regardless of what anyone says. The
aspects of our religious background that we are most
attached to are love for the divine head of our faith
and the traditional customs (prayer, songs, ceremonies)
that we practice.
These elements are, for the most part, unique to our
particular religion and would be difficult to give up.
If, on the other hand, we were asked to adopt new or
updated religious teachings that would benefit humankind
as a whole without giving up all our religious traditions
or love for the spiritual leader we grew up with, we
might be more open to that prospect.
When discussing religion, it is not only the so-called
religious people who are concerned about the subject,
but there are those who claim to be nonreligious who are
also interested. There are many who call themselves
atheists or agnostics or those who prefer not to identify
with any formally organized group or label. Because
there have been many conflicts throughout history that
rightly or wrongly have been associated with religion,
many have rejected the notion that religion is a
positive force for society. I am reminded of a quote that
has left an impression on me and I paraphrase here
"...if religion be the cause of divisiveness, enmity, strife
or hypocrisy, then it would be best to be without religion
and to withdraw from such a religion would be
a truly religious act! "
Even the definition of the word God can be so nebulous
that the God an atheist does not believe in may be the same God that a theist does not believe in.
I believe many people who call themselves nonreligious
are actually religious in the true sense of the word.
This is often demonstrated by their deeds that are of
benefit not only to the people with whom they come in
contact, but frequently to all of humanity. To convince
them that religion is an entity that promotes growth and
harmony for society as well as the individual would
require for the most part, an intellectual approach
because they do not have an emotional attachment to
religion. However, at some point the heart may be the
determining factor of their views of their religion.
It is doubtful to me that anyone can actually prove
their religion comes directly from God, although
a convincing argument may be given to support such a
claim. I do believe that there are religions which,
regardless of whether or not we believe they come
from God, are sufficiently godly in their purpose and
practice that we should not be overly concerned with
their origins. Unfortunately, people have a tendency
to be more concerned with titles, trappings, and
traditions rather than with substance or results.
If we truly believe in God, then we should accept
that all things, or at least those things of a positive
nature, are from our Creator.
Whether we are members of a religious group or not,
religion impacts upon the lives of everyone around
the world so we should know as much as possible
about all religions. Knowledge of any subject,
particularly those that directly relate to society, can
be very useful in developing understanding and
tolerance as well as appreciation for cultures that
are different than our own.
Religion, I would say, is one of those subjects.
Phil Morrison.
