This course took a very different approach than I first anticipated. So if I may, I would like to begin my comments by quoting the ending conclusion:
"The dictionary defines
Religious Philosophy as being an ‘inquiry into the nature of things’. It also defines Religion as ‘the expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power’. If we combine these two together to get a Philosophy of Religion, we might be able to define that as ‘inquiry into the nature of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power.’
In essence, that is what we have been doing for the past 24 lessons ‘inquiring into the nature of those beliefs! The very core of inquiry is ‘a close examination of a matter in a quest for truth.’ The nature of any such inquiry, therefore, is that we are pursuing an area where there may be honest, but significant, disagreement. Such is the case here. You may be in total agreement with what has been reviewed in these lessons; or, you may consider it to be little more than a crude collection of blasphemous errors. Since the goal of this class at the outset was simply to initiate such an inquiry, the main purpose of the course has therefore been a success either way!"
Firstly, I had loosely accepted the 'meaning' of "Philosophy" as a type of 'attitude' that was able to view both sides of a troublesome disagreement. A kind of insight into an issue without actually having to "take sides"; a kind of "knowing" without the inquiry. And secondly, I expected the course to be one of studying a Philosophy of RELIGION, instead of RELIGIOUS Philosophy, a subtle difference. Thus this course became a deep journey of inquiry, challenging several attitudes and perceptions!
Over the course of 24 weeks, we inquired into many comprehensive views:
· Origins of Religion, history, fundamentals
· Various FORMS of Religion
· How Religion is Organized and Classified
· Various EXPRESSIONS (e.g., myth, doctrine, scripture, social, psychological, etc)
· Faiths that are ‘˜Western’, ‘˜Eastern’, ‘˜Southern’, ‘˜Shamanistic’, etc.
· Why ARE humans so innately religious?
Indisputably RELIGION has been a common and inescapable chord throughout the entire history of humankind. The introductions to the history and origins of religion in this course plays this out very well. Much, if not most of the recorded historical human events can be tied directly or indirectly to our religious beliefs and/or practices. Every generation is faced with these kinds of observations, always leading to the same questions ‘“ is religion ‘true’? Does God exist? Why am I here? Is there ‘˜life after death’? I’ll come back to these questions, as they seem to drive all humankind towards some ‘end’.
Comparative
A very interesting inquiry was exploring the test between ‘˜organized religions’ and ‘˜cults’. As the course reveals, ‘... most anthropologists adhere to a ‘˜five point system’ in determining whether or not a specific group ‘” religious or otherwise ‘” should be classified as a cult.
These five points can be presented in the form of questions about the group. These are:
1. Does the group have a charismatic, powerful leader (or leaders)?
2. Does it display a group mentality that denies individuality and personal, independent thought?
3. Is there a denial of intimacy by excluding or alienating friends and relatives?
4. Do they apply financial pressure and abuse for the welfare of the group, even at the personal expense of the adherent?
5. Is there a separation and isolation from the surrounding community?’
What is striking about this ‘5 point system’ is that they basically define ANY organized group ‘“ religious or otherwise!! I can QUICKLY quote New Testament scriptures to CONFIRM each of these points, therefore ‘concluding’ that Christianity is a ‘cult’. Philosophically (there’s that word again!) you can show where Democrats and Republicans demonstrate at least 4 or the 5 points! The whole PURPOSE of organizing a group of people who SHARE the common goals of the ‘group’ is to BELONG to a group of people who think, live, and believe like I do! To BELONG, to be ACCEPTED, to be INCLUDED are FOUNDATIONAL needs in humans. To be EXCLUDED is like an emotional death sentence, resulting in many physical stresses and anxieties in us.
It would seem therefore, that this ‘5 point system’ is more along the lines of DEFINING any ORGANIZED group ‘“ period. If ANY group demonstrates these 5 points ‘“ they are ORGANIZED. Whether or not the group is a ‘cult’, is a function of degree ‘“ to what ‘extreme’ does a group go to ‘deny familial intimacy’, or to enforce ‘separation and isolation’? What is NOT provided by these ‘anthropologists is the ‘extremity scale’ by which we can assess the ‘cult status’ of one group versus another. For instance, The Davidians of Waco, Texas were quite EXTREME in all 5 points; The First Methodist Church on Main Street in downtown Waco, Texas is NOT ‘extreme’, but rather ‘conservative’ in expressing these 5 points. On the surface therefore, it is a little DECEIVING to the readers of this course to use ONLY this ‘5 point system’ as a guide for determining a ‘cult status’, without further determining ‘degree of enforcement’.
Controversy
Lesson 5 was probably the most ‘˜controversial’ lesson for me. Following lesson 4’s ‘˜intellectual summaries’ of men such as Marx, Freud, Durkheim, James which seem to have ‘views’ that religion is the mental/psychological projection of our own innate qualities, fears, needs and our innermost problems or issues, lesson 4 concludes with a tantalizing ‘promise’. Quoting again: ’These are several theories as to ‘why’ we have religion; there are many others, as well. These, however, are some of the best known to students of Religious Philosophy. Note that there is one remaining reason why we might have religion that has not been reviewed to date, and which has a totally different ‘take’ on the whole subject: religion exists because there is a God (or gods) who desire and deserve human adoration, reverence, and worship!’ {Emphasis mine.}
However, as Lesson 5 unfolds, instead of examining a reason that ‘there is a God’ (as to the evidence of God himself) it seems we’re taken down a biological inquiry into human genetics and the possibility of a ‘religiosity gene’! The natural conclusion to a ‘religiosity gene’ seems to imply there is NO God, but rather it’s carbon-based and DNA induced! I felt this was a bit of deception as to what Lesson 5 was ‘really’ about.
For years I have struggled with the fact that many brilliant people are ‘believers’ and the fact that many equally brilliant people were NOT ‘believers’. There seemed to be one difference in the ‘brilliance’ of these individuals and that was one of ‘faith’, a belief in an unquantifiable entity. Along these same lines I have wondered about the idea that ‘non believers’ seem to require a ‘physical proof for a spiritual truth’. But intellectually, can a spiritual ‘truth’ ever be physically proven? Thus the whole business of this ‘Religious Philosophy/Inquiry’ course!
From Dr Hamer’s work, and outlined in his book, ‘The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes’, the author of Lesson 5 states: ‘One conclusion we can draw (after we take out all of the highly technical jargon) is that the serotonin system in the brain may provide a biological impetus for religiosity. Since the concentration of serotonin receptors is genetically determined, this is one possible way in which religiosity may be genetically based.’ I do not agree with this conclusion, and here’s why.
Dr. Hamer explains that serotonin level is a factor in the feeling of ‘euphoria’ or ‘transcendence’. Faith (as it relates to RELIGION only) is a BELIEF system in a ‘˜super power’ that is in charge of the ‘universe’. Faith is not a ‘euphoric feeling’ that results from a flood of serotonin. I can feel ‘euphoric’ winning a little league baseball game. I’m ecstatic ‘“ but it has nothing to do with ‘faith’. To connect the ‘euphoria’ felt from winning a ball game with sitting in a church service (or other Religious activity) is just another way of making it ‘guilty by association’. It does NOT suggest why we have Religiosity in people. It can, however, explain why they FEEL GOOD in their Religiosity, like I feel GOOD after winning a sporting event, or accomplish my sales goal at work, etc.
[sidebar ‘“ I had another ‘issue’ with a quote given in the ‘homosexual statistics’ portion of Lesson 5. The quote goes: ‘‘¦if neither genetics nor how parents raise children had an effect on their sexual orientation, we would expect about 6% of the siblings in each of these categories would be homosexual. But, they’re not. In fact, just being raised in the same household nearly doubles the likelihood that a child will be gay. If the two boys are also related, it makes it nearly 4 times as likely they will be gay. And, if they’re identical twins, then it grows to being nearly 9 times as likely.’ {Emphasis mine.} It just appears contradictory to say ‘how parents raise children had no effect on sexual orientation’ followed by ‘In FACT, just being raised in the same household nearly doubles the likelihood that a child will be gay.’ Perhaps this needs clarifying but it saying ‘how parents raise’ and ‘raised in the same household’ both seem to say the SAME thing. End of sidebar!]
Tolerance
Man! How important was this Lesson?? It seems just too easy to conclude that INtolerance has lead to so much injury, death and destruction ‘¦ and so often in the ‘Name of God’! This is probably the single biggest argument AGAINST the existence of a living, loving God! I mean, how could a loving God have so many divergent ‘belief systems’ that causes so much hate and anger in the world over eons of time?? It’s a question we can’t escape.
I thought the 5 steps of toleration were especially helpful. To review, the 5 steps are:
· Awareness; 5 points
· Acknowledgement; 10 points
· Acceptance; 16 points
· Appreciation; and, 22 points
· Amalgamation. 28 points
These 5 ‘˜steps’ represent an excellent ‘scalability’ score and when I took the quiz, I scored a ‘17’. (From the above list, I’ve included the point system given for the quiz; so in my case, I’ve just gone past ‘˜Acceptance’ on my way to ‘˜Appreciation’.)
One of the ’issues’ I noticed in the way some questions in the quiz were worded was to pick a Religion that ‘˜was NOT your own’. The standard example was: ‘Christians, Jews, Muslims’. For a TOLERANCE lesson, including ‘Muslims’ was extra-aggravating. For obvious reasons, the Religion of Islam has made a MAJOR MAJOR impact on the United States over the past 5 years, starting with Sept 11, 2001. Before 9/11, most folks thought Islam was the Arab’s Religion, ‘over there’ somewhere. It has become an interesting ‘journey of Inquiry’ to me personally to see just how VIOLENT Islam really is, especially when preached by the extremists like Osama Ben Laden and other so called ‘clerics’. Mohammed was a very violent leader who was a very effective leader that rallied many Arab nations at time when they needed rallying. Unfortunately he has left ‘scripture’ that allows all non-Muslims 3 choices:
1. become Muslim by accepting Islam and the prophet Mohammed
2. submit to being an inferior, subordinate citizen, and pay the Jizrah tax or
3. die
That’s it. Those are the proselytizing orders for the Islam Religion. World domination, under Allah, is THE goal. There is no peaceful coexistence nor tolerance (outside of the inferior citizenship who pays the Jizrah tax ‘“ which is a slave status without being ‘owned’ by a master ‘“ other than the master of Islam). Talk about ‘tolerance!’ Wow. And here’s a REALLY bothersome, even disturbing issue: The United States, founded on Christian principles as a ‘Christian nation’ and under a Constitution that GUARANTEES Religious freedom for all, MUST, by law, allow the Religion of Islam, whose stated purpose is to rid the world of all Religions, save Islam! Therefore, the US must allow the practice of Islam under protected Religious freedoms, whose sole purpose is to ultimately eliminate the very Constitution and Nation that guarantees them the right to eliminate us! Islam even permits lying, stealing, cheating and deception, if it furthers the work of Allah, so you cannot fully rely on any promise to live peacefully, side by side with non-Muslims.
So to use Muslims in the questions of the ‘˜Tolerance Quiz’ was very troublesome to me! In REALITY, we cannot permit the sects of Islam that teach what I’ve outlined here below; as it could seal our destruction as a nation; yet the laws of our nation guarantee Religious freedom! So I probably would have scored higher on the quiz, but I’m much less ‘tolerant’ of a religion whose stated purpose is either my conversion or my demise!
Conclusion
I would like to conclude my essay with the questions I posed at the beginning: Is religion ‘true’? Does God exist? Why am I here? Is there ‘˜life after death’?
YOU must decide.
It seems to me that as we INQUIRE into man’s Religions, every person, whether or not they have an abundant supply of seratonin, to BELIEVE in a Supreme Being. Sociologically, it is well-known that every culture (that has been historically studied), has lived by a ‘code of ethics’ and collectively had a sense of ‘right and wrong’. Religion has provided a systematic, logical and organized way to present an acceptable overview of the ‘cosmos’, that there is a Supreme Being ‘out there’ who set in motion an environment that goes through the ‘cycle of life’. How you live in the ‘cycle’ can determine what happens in the ‘next world’ or next ‘life’ (e.g., rewards or punishment.)
To develop a system of ‘right and wrong’ or ‘code of ethics’ or ‘rules for living’, by definition, requires some foundational basis. What are these ‘rules’ based on? A living, all-seeing, all-knowing God seems a logical place to say, the ‘buck stops here’. If ‘God said it, that settles it’ is not a bad place to get the ‘˜roadmaps for life’. However, if God is nothing but a product of our fears and imagination, that we’re just a carbon-based entity, here accidentally, with neither purpose nor reason for even breathing, then the basis of my ‘code of ethics’ is just another figment of my imagination and means nothing more than body sweat, just a naturally occurring biological urge. To have a ‘˜system of laws’ based on a ‘Higher Being’ gives ‘authority’ and ‘stability’ and ‘purpose’ behind the laws. To base them on biological urges, is nothing. Laws formed under ‘lower being’ urges, is then a matter of opinion, your’s versus mine. Who’s right if it’s an opinion between you and me? I am of course! Unless you convince me otherwise.
Now segregate all the humans from all the cultures from around the globe over all recorded time, all focused on THEIR perceived ‘Higher Beings’, then in time, there will be a clash of cultures, all believing with equal ferocity, that MY opinion supersedes YOUR opinion ‘“ join OUR group and way of believing/living/existing! And when a culture or society has lived for eons of time (or as long as can be remembered), there IS only one right way of believing, and it’s the one I’M most comfortable with. After all, all my ancestors all can’t be wrong!
But to really conclude the matter, the bottom line for following a Religious Belief is an individual, personal decision. A decision to believe or not to believe should be based on ‘available evidence’, beyond a ‘REASONABLE’ doubt. Not beyond ANY doubt because God’s existence cannot be ‘proved’. Just as God’s existence cannot be ‘DIS-proved’, either. What remains is FAITH. Not a warm and fuzzy FEELING, as excess serotonin provides, but a decision made based on the accumulation of evidence, barring actual proof to the contrary. Therefore, if God can’t be proved or disproved, then it makes LOGICAL SENSE to take a step of faith and believe in God {just in case there IS a God on the ‘other side’}! What most folks totally deny is this: to NOT believe in God, IS ITSELF AN ACT OF FAITH! So one may correctly conclude that to not believe, is an act of Faith!
Yours, in the Journey,
Michael L. Disney
*******************************
