Part Two

 

Western Religion:
A Personal Perspective

Whenever I listen to a priest, either at some religious ceremony (of which I attend mercifully few) or on television, I look at the person and wonder how he or she can keep trotting out such utter rubbish. I look carefully at the face for signs of a wry smile that gives away the intelligent mind inside; a smile that says "I don't really believe most of this crap but it's what I'm paid to say". Now anyone who has read through Part One of this website and noted my dislike of hard-line scepticism might think that there is more than a trace of hypocritical irony in those seemingly harsh comments. Hopefully I can now show that there is some consistency in my reasoning. The common factor, the target of my ire in both cases can be summed up in one word: dogma. The academic/scientific orthodoxy and the three major religions in the west all exclude any possibility that their view might be wrong. An example from science is this quote from Lewis Wolpert, a biologist:

"An open mind is a very bad thing - everything falls out."

The difference, as I see it, between scientific and religious dogmatists is that religious people believe that they have been given the word of God first-hand and therefore any attempt to present evidence contrary to their beliefs can be ignored as mere human fallibility. Scientists, on the other hand, insist that they will only believe the evidence. Of course, they themselves reserve the right to set the parameters for acceptance of evidence. The further away from the materialist core assumptions, the tougher it becomes for evidence to be accepted - a fact acknowledged and justified by the late, popular scientist, Carl Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

So, if you believe that you have communicated by telepathy, or have lived before, you will be branded at best as deluded and at worst as a liar, a cheat or a lunatic regardless of the certainty of your experience. I would recommend the book, Best Evidence by Michael Schmicker for a well written treatment of this subject.

If, on the other hand, you were to take those same claims to your religious leaders, you might - these days - be told that you have been possessed by demons or accused of treating with Satan. These and other subjects generally related to the paranormal are often deemed by the church to be aspects of the occult: the work of the devil. In days gone by you would probably have been tied to a stake and burned alive for admitting to such abominations.

My problem is not so much with religion but with religious organisations: churches, orthodoxy and - especially - fundamentalists. I have no problem with personal faith and the spiritual needs of the lay community. I have no problem with those who seek, only with those who preach: the rule makers, the organisers, the spin doctors, those who would control and direct us like sheep into the pens of restricted thinking. Those who would tell the faithful that, not only is it a blessed act to die for their particular brand of dogma, but that it is also heroic to kill for the same. And, philosophically speaking, my problem with organised religion is with their concept of God. The anthropomorphic portrayal of God as a paternalistic ruler of heaven and earth; a God with human characteristics such as pride, vengeance, jealousy and anger. A God very much like the Michelangelo picture in the banner heading at the top of these pages. I will describe my concept of God - a word I'm actually reluctant to use because of the above connotations - later, in my personal section.

So in this section I would like to delve deeper into the roots of western religious traditions. I have tried to understand why I was brought up to believe - without question - in certain myths that, even as a boy of twelve (I was always a slow starter), I could see were patent nonsense. When the boy that I was came to challenge my religious teachers about some of the glaring contradictions presented as the holy truth, the answers were so unsatisfactory that I quickly lost all faith and - for a time at least - switched to the other side: atheism. I was then willing to embrace the cold, hard doctrine of the cosmic accident until, of course, those answers too became deeply unsatisfactory. Where that led me to will be the subject of Part Three of this website where I will attempt to explain my personal philosophy.

The comments here are directed towards the so-called western religions: all the different factions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I know far too little about eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism to be able to comment although I suspect I might find a certain affinity with the Buddhist philosophy if I were to look a little closer. This is not to say that I'm any kind of expert on the subject of any religion: western or otherwise. However I was brought up as a church-going Christian and have had enough exposure to western religious customs to form opinions. And that is all I am expressing here: personal opinions.

<<  Previous  ...  Next  >>