Morality and religion

I find parts of Richards Dawkins "The God Delusion" most enlightening. For example, Richard Dawkins stylishly debunked the popular strawman created by creationist, that some of the most pernicious, noxious leaders in the 20th century, such as Hitler and Stalin, were atheist, and therefore atheism is "Evil". Henceforth, religion is better than no religion.


I find it impossibly difficult to not laugh at such ludicrous beliefs. Hitlers and Stalins were both as short as they are atheist. So by the same vein, being short also implies a causal link to opprobrious, miasmic acts of evil. This fallacy is stupefyingly obtuse, and it speaks volumes of the people who believe,or advance their arguments through the employment of the fallacy itself. Unless people could establish some sort of link between them being aetheist, and the nefarious crimes they commit, (which I doubt they could), this strawman is doomed to crumple. Hitler or Stalin has never invoked "aetheism" as the reason for their indiscriminate persecution, unlike religious wars whereby leaders have invoked the God of Islam, or any other religion, as their trigger point for conflict.

I find it quite interesting though, even though I am a Christian, but nevertheless reading some of the arguments put forth by Dawkins really fascinates me till no end. For example, Dawkins mentioned that the reason why a particular individual is bornt, say, a Christian, and not a Buddhist, mormonist, islamist or any other religious subject, is because we grow up in the particular influence. Our parents carry that sort of religion, and so do our grandparents, and so on ad infinitum. But even though this may be true of America and presumably parts of Europe, what is going on in Asia clearly contradicts his point of view. In Asia, there is an accelerated trend of religious conversion, and more often than not, converts include people who are into adulthood (and hence possess the maturity to make decisions for themselves), who have had religious influence for past many years, and who have been brought up in another religion, usually provincial and traditional in the particular area of living, and which conflicts with the religion to which they switch. The tidal wave of Christianity proselytization in South Korea and China, and even the rest of Asia, is gaining grounds. And this phenomenom defies conventional saying that religion is passed down from one generation to another. Because truly by observing this present trend, one can surmise that these people, thinking conscientious adults, must have had their reasons for choosing that particular religion - Christianity, Islamism etc, especially when they have had many years of past religious teachings imibibed into them and when the scale of conversion is widespread and appears to be gaining greater momentum.

Likewise he mentioned an interesting point, that the reason why Bible is wholly and unquestioningly followed by believers is due to the fact that we have been brought up in a manner devoid of critical thinking, perspective and choices. For example, replace the Bible (while keeping the circumstances i.e teaching someone to believe, to learn in faith etc constant) with any hosh-posh book and the outcome is likely to be very similar, to the point of being predictable. However, what makes the Christian faith so enduring and so widespread is the kind of standing that it has established in modern society. It is not so easy, so to say, that any tosh conjured by any individual, could easily lead to the same effect. There are millions of churches world wide, with even more followers. And theology, especially the Christian faith, is itself a subject with a rigorously researched base and a deep history behind it. So what he said was not entirely right, in the sense that we cannot simply claim that any hosh posh religion conjured arbitarily by any individual (with a certain degree of influence) can achieve the same effect of perpetuity and deep seated beliefs in its subjects, unlike Christianity.

I think one thing noteworthy is that religious followers' unfaltering beliefs in their religions is predicated on one thinking: that their God is true, and his words, absolute. His argument could work only when religious subjects are able to open up to the slightest possibility that their God might be non existent, and then debate from this onwards. But the difference between Scientist and a pious subject is highlighted, in a stunningly crystal-clear description : A scientist will, at the earliest possible time, turned against his own scientific beliefs if there were clear, succint evidence that contradicts it. A religious subject, however, would remain steadfast and resolute in his beliefs, even if all evidence turns againt it. The reason is simple : Science itself is built on evidence and logical reasoning. Religion itself, is built on stilts of faith - unwavering, deep seated faith. How do you use evidence and reasoning to challenge something that has never stemmed from, or established itself on evidence or reasoning?

One thing I definitely concur is that morality and religion are two disparate fields. The argument that the possession of morality is conditional upon one's belief in religion is entirely myopic and is fraught with some measurement of condescension as well as smug, high-handed egoisticism. It is akin to giving a tight slap to non believers, especially decent, civilized ones who have lived their lives honestly and uprightly, only to be labelled as being morally deficient, or in the worst case, bankrupt, just because they did not have any particular beliefs. Richard Dawkins argued quite cogently, using a particular research as his focal point, and advanced that right and wrong are concepts that are almost agreeable between believers and non believers alike. The research results was very telling; save for the slight anomaly of about 3%, most of their views (based on the scenario given to them) were converged and extrapolated to an almost absolute consensus. However, this research isnt very adequate, because the most contentious, disputed fields are left out of his reasoning. Fields such as homosexuality, abortion and cloning, were (perhaps deliberately) left out of the table of discussion. I guess Dawkins has foreseen this point, because he laid a subtle disclaimer that there were certain issues that both believers are non believers believe to an almost unanimous degree. To me it seems kinda ambiguous, as though he is saying that the moral views of both believers and non believers coincide, to the extent that they coincide when contentious, factious issues are left out. I can safely assert that if there ever were such a survey, where non believers and believers are given a questionaire regarding homosexuality, the results are likely to be polarised.

Nevertheless, Dawkins also laid out a long explanation of why religious subject could not possibility construct their morality based on religous teachings. He highlighted various passages from the Bible, describing the sheer malice and repugnance in the contents, and I must admit I was duly shaken. This begets a good question. One cannot possibly derive his morality on such teachings. This led Dawkins to further expound his view that religion is picked and chosen by religious subjects capriciously, and tailored to their wishes and arbitration. For example, he mentioned that peole are likely to gloss over grossly violent texts as being symbols, allegories or with various kinds of dismission. He then expressed his disbelief that people who claimed to follow a particular religion, could actually decide, in a self referencing and discretional way, what to follow in the literal sense and what to follow in the symbolic sense. And further on, since individuals cherry-pick, there must have been a criterion which they follow. This leads him to think that this criterion, is the general, universal morality which we all possess, in spite of religion or not. I must concede that some of the texts in the bible itself is rather distasteful and even unbearably chauvinistic ( as in women are subjects of men), gory( as in the smitings and stonings) and even odiously macabre and morbid ( as in many instances of sacrificial).

This is as much as I can say today, but still I would like to end with a note that what makes religion so unprecedentedly antagonistic, inflammatory, and rancourous is because of the way people are taught, and even more the way people carry their beliefs. Belief itself, reduced to its very essence, is simply the belief in the betterment of the World and the people in this World, and this betterment could be achieved wholly and successfully only through God's might. But lamentably, religion has been distorted, convoluted, caricatured,twisted and manipulated (perhaps unintentionally, since beliefs passed down through generations are bound to be marinated with half truths, unreliabilities and myths) by people themselves. My personal view has always been that of moderation and respect. Faiths should never be imposed and impinged upon other people. More importantly, echoed by Richard Dawkins, faith should never, more so, be spread wihout the individual autonomy and availability of choice. Recently, I have witnessed a strong, aggressive desire from the Church to aggrandize and spread their influences and beliefs. While this itself is not inherently wrong, since from a rather benign view, spreading faith in goodwill, whilst maintaining the individuals autonomy and freedom isnt really a harmful thing. However,rather sadly, I have seen religious factions and groups aggressively, and even antagonistically, advancing their beliefs on other territories and having complete disregard to individuals fundamental right. Such example is manifested in a report I read, where a group of Christians picketed the funeral of a deceased soldier, who was believed to be a homosexual. Religion takes its form in many different shapes and size, but this form is spectacularly deleterious and baneful. The poor solider went to the frontline, sacrificed his life for the country and all he got was this from a group of pharisiac believers. No religion, in my view, can have the monopoly over what is right, what is wrong, what kind of life is worth living etc. Why? 4 simple reasons. One, there are too many religions. Neither can prove itself, or be proven , that it is above all. Two, religion itself is not exempt from internal schism, factions and partisan-ship. 3, religious subjects themselves are as imperfect, and as capable of committing crime and sin, as non religious ones. 4 The veracity of religion cannot be validated. But saddeningly what is happening is that some Christians are getting bellicuse and didactic, expecting or even wanting people to adhere, to their way of teaching, against their will and consent, which is absurb. We should never proscribe the individual's right of choice, as we are no moral authority. We can not assert upon others our beliefs behind the false veneer of God, which is shameful and sanctimonious. God's name should never be exploited or contrived for one's own purposes. I believe in explaining to people the meaning of God, and my religious beliefs if need be, but never press upon others to follow suit, never colour my religion , never provide blinkered, false information ,and most importantly, never hate or strong-arm non believers. I live my my life in the name of God, and truly, why care excessively about other people when we cannot even take care of our own backyards? I am contented to live a quiet life holding a personal fruitful relationship with God in a peaceful, non infringing way. Maybe its just me.