Religion and the right path

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Few months back somebody said to me that common people, in general, need guidence that is essential to keep them morally good and decent. We were talking about religion and I, as usual, was giving my trivial and absurd, illogical ‘points of view’ on the topic.

He said that a lot of people may not need that guidence, strictly speaking in terms of morality, as they are already morally self-desciplined and decent human beings but a lot others do.

I think he made a good point. No matter what I personally believe in, whether I am a Muslim or athiest or agnostic, I can look back at many people that I have met in my life who are living good and decent lives because of their fear, love and respect, and obedience to God’s saying. Their thoughts and beliefs are simple and straight forward. ‘We be nice because God says so’. For all practical, realistic, and logical reasons, I believe that if they did not have this obedience towards God, they would have lead less happier and content lives, not to mention with a lesser degree of morality.

Quite long ago I read this quote somewhere (and I paraphrase):

Be honest without the thought of heaven or hell

I thought it was a pretty good thing to say. Being good and decent is obligatory so why do it in the ‘greed’ of a reward or out of fear of hell? But pretty soon it was clear to me that no matter how simple the concept may be, not everybody can put their faith on it and be happy. It’s not about weakness or strength, it’s just the varying nature of different people’s psychology in this world. Some people would do something out of fear, others will in the hope of reward, and so on… Nothing wrong with that. People don’t murder other people based on different reasons. Doesn’t matter, as long as they are not out there on killing sprees.
Now, I am not saying religious people do good things solely for reward or out of fear. These are just my exemplary factors. There are, of course, many others.

On the other hand, I have met so many extremely decent and moral people who are either athiest or agnostic. Their sense of goodness and evil has been a result of their own conscious, realization, and rationalization which had nothing to do with any sort of religious belief. I can certainly see reaction from some of the people around here when I say that If such people are going to hell just because they did not believe God existed then I’d myself be better off not believing in such a God!

The point is that there is no doubt, in my mind, that religion is still one of the greatest stabalizing forces in a society (Whether or not I personally believe in religion) but at the same time it is not the only right path for many other people living within the same society. In our every day religious practices and interpretations we overlook at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is a lot simpler than many may thing. And it’s the objective to achieve peace and decency no matter which method you use to achieve it. It’s not about God, it’s about morality and righteousness. And if you look at it that way, the objective in all cases is the same.

2

Roman, I agree with the central theme of your post.

I think you have hit the nail when you said "It's not about
God, it's about morality and righteousness"

Lot of people believe in any particular religion as if they are trying to save or establish God's kindgom. God is almighty powerful, he does not need our help for that. Religion is to help us stabilize the society and live meaningful lives and if it fails in that I would say throw it in garbage bin. We don't need it. God is a matter of philosophy and spirituality. A deeper subject than most common people can grasp.

3

Dear Roman,

Getting philosophical here, ay!

I believe that one has nothing to do with the other.

I took Religion and Ethics in my undergrad. During which I studied “Humanists”, a reformatory classical literature, flourished during the European Renaissance (1300 to 1600). Basically it was the Augustus’ corruption, and the influx of “Orientals” into Italy that brought with them orgiastic religions. Expanding cities introduced urban immorality. And this was where the Humanists writings took great influence from the moralists (Greek and Roman). This in literature is known as the Golden Age.

The most commonly referred “God did not create man, but Man in his own mind created God” was the basis of many of these writings. A clear distinction is drawn between “Morals and Ethics” and “Religion.”

You points are well made. I personally believe that Morality is something that is very subjective and is always influenced by the environment around us. What may be ethical and moral to someone in New York, may not be such a good idea in Tokyo. But now with globalization, our moral values and standards are becoming pretty universal (through satellite TV, etc.). The generation after ours will probably inter-mingle with differing cultures like a continual flow of time during which one era gradually emerges into another.

Good post!!

4

NYAhmadi,

I think they both leads towards the same thing.

Just like anyother concept, our senses and definitions of morality, righteousness, and religion differ at different levels. A philosophical approach or imploration may give us a more soothing answer, but the basis of my post are the common people (and again, if we start exploring the definition of what common people are then it will furthur get into more philosophical discussion, away from the general and simpler level where I rest my opinion and theme of the thread).

Yes, morality is a subjective matter if you take it to more philosophical measures, but at the same time there exist 'objective' bounderies as well. Laws and regulations in a society, the conforming conduct of a citizen with regards to his/her neighbors' standards, and norms of society... all these do delineate a certain sense of morality that we all abide by.

Along with that Education, curiosity of an individual, peer influence etc, all give use quite a reasonable picture of what morality and decency is. It may not be the whole picture, but can we reach absoluteness when it comes to subjective matters of life? No, we can’t. Realistically speaking, we can only keep it to a certain balance. That balance may not be optimal but we keep trying. We keep trying to make things better. Examples are amendments in constitutions, laws, public opinion and its impact, and most definitely, the changing living environment around us.

Does a common individual needs to read the philosophical works of scholars to understand the viable sense of morality to live a decent life? No. And in part it also has to do with your point But now with globalization, our moral values and standards are becoming pretty universal (through satellite TV, etc.)

Like in anything else in this world, different people have varying intellectual exploration levels to satisfy their needs of forming beliefs in something. We can take Rene' Descartes and declare him the ultimate authority on rationalism but would that matter to a common person? We would incidently be following the same fallacy in case of religion by presenting one and only one source of righteous and accurate belief system. That common person’s belief would remain be limited to he/she has been and is exposed to. Our points of reference to a viable sense of morality change. And that’s exactly why different people follow different beliefs to achieve the same thing.

A thought came to my along the same lines of your quote that I cited above after I wrote the original post last night. That is, the futuristic picture of religion and morality. I think it will be very interesting to discuss it in a separate thread.

5

Roman,

very interesting post I agree with most of what you say.

If such people are going to hell just because they did not believe God existed then I'd myself be better off not believing in such a God!<<

These are exactly my sentiments.

The point is that there is no doubt, in my mind, that religion is still one of the greatest stabalizing forces in a society (Whether or not I personally believe in religion)<<

I disagree with your above statement there have been lots wars waged and fought and are being fought in the name of religion from time Immemorial. Actually religion is a political group forming force to gain relative advantage over other groups, if one group becomes too big splinter groups are formed.

but at the same time it is not the only right path for many other people living within the same society. In our every day religious practices<<

I absolutely agree but religious leaders have vested interest in keeping their followers from straying therefore they regularly brain wash the young and the old to follow them.

Thanks for introducing an interesting topic.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited January 25, 2000).]

6

Only one question. Why not believe in Allah? Isn't He the One who brought this entire universe into creation from naught? Isn't He the one who fashioned our faces inside the wombs of our mothers and nourished us where there was nobody to feed us? Allah says in the Quran, to the nearest meaning, that our provision comes from the Heavens no matter what we see. Who is the One Who regenerates the leaves in the trees after they fall every year? Who is the One Who makes the cloud gather water and shower rains upon us. The rain that falls on the dead ground and rejuvenates it with vegetation. Is it hard for Him to bring us back to life and hold us accountable for our deeds? Make no mistake that the object of this life is to realize that our Creator, Sustainer, and Cherisher is the One whom nobody created, is in no need of sustenance, and nobody can cherish.

7

Rani,

I used to think the same. That religion has wasted more lives than it has saved. But I think we fall into a fallacy if we compare the two in terms of wars and lives. It's because we can count number of wars fought on the name of religion and estimate number of lives wasted, but we don't have the opposing 'data' to compare it, do we? How can count or estimate number of wars that were not fought because of the existence of religion?

The realization has to come from the implications. The implication of how people adopted and abided by religion to refrain from certain evils. And the implication is deep and vast. We can quantitatively count the number of wars on the name of religion but can't do so contrarily in the case of pervention of evil deeds due to religion. I know, it's a paradox but historically speaking, that's how all (or majority of ) the societies developed into what we know of them now.

Another fallacy, in my personal opinion, would be to look at religion to cause not to have wars on its basis. I know, it does not make sense, but I think the foundation of religion is based on trade off just as it is the case in most of other matters in life. The trade off comes from the fact that there is not one uniform faith and/or religion (and it can't be) among all the people in this world. Resistence and reaction will rise naturally in such a case, and consequently the trade off in the form of wars, manipulation of masses on the name of religion, and dozens of other things.

But given that majority of the people in this world follow some form of religion for their sense of morality and spiritual contentment, if you take away religion, the world would be chaos.

iqadeer,

Why not believe in Allah?

The answer is simple. Because a lot of people in this world don't believe in God. They don't believe God exists with the same intesity that you belive that He exists.

And then there are a lot of people who don't go even that far. They don't say that God exists, neither that He doesn't exist. They simply don't look for a God for any answer, they find them own their own. And then there is another category of people that may believe in God, but they don't follow religion to tell them what's wrong and what's right. They learn it from other sources.

But does this mean that if all the above types of people don't abide by any sense of morality? They don't try to be honest and righteous since they don't have any religion to tell them so? No, they still are moral people and still are righteous as for them these concepts and abidance comes from different other sources like their own reflections upon life and surrounding environment, obedience to the governing laws and social norms etc.

They would still give charity as they believe in helping others despite what other people's religion say on that.

The end result in both cases (non believers and believers) is the same. Why? Because one attained that consciousness through religion, the other through his/her own sense of morality. It is not my point that one should be religious or not to achieve that 'essential state of morality'. My point is that people use different means to achieve it and one is not better than the other as long as that particular state is accompolished.

8

The Islamic concept of Allah is deeply ingrained in the concept of hereafter, that is the eternal life after death. Surely, only those people deny Allah as their Creator, who deny hereafter. This life is temporal and will end one day whether in pain or pleasure. The entire gist of the Quran is that human beings must not look at the fleeting pleasure of this life and get deceived by the luxuries and comforts of this life. Yes, Islam ensures tranquillity in this life for a person who accepts Islam, however money and power must not be confused with tranquillity. Its the inner satisfaction that is the gift from Allah to a person who wholeheartedly and willingly submits himself to Allah's will and command. Rasool Allah sallalaho alaihe wasalam was offered to have the mountains of Makkah turned into gold yet he refused and asked Allah to feed him one day so that he may thank him and leave him hungry the next so that he may remain patient. As muslims, we must also try to understand the spirit of the message of prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasalam) who could have had the kingdom of the world yet he knew that this kingdom will come to an end one day but the kingdom given in the hereafter will be forever and the happiness and the pleasure will be forever. If money is granted to a slave by Allah, he must give thanks to Allah and spend it wisely. However, according to the majority of the theologians, money has a corrupting influence on a person and in most cases it may cause a person to become distant from Allah and forgetful of hereafter. We can see its effects in today's world that there are so many billionaires and millionaires even among the muslims yet millions of people live in abject poverty and sleep hungry. This money will not save us on the day of judgement if its not spent in zakaat and charity. And the acceptance of these deeds is also dependent on the sincerety of a person's intention. Which in turn depends on his concept of the life of hereafter. Therefore, as a muslim it is of utmost importance that we must always have the hereafter in view whenever performing any good deeds.

9

Roman,
Well done for writing a good post.

Maybe the fact that there is 'religion' has helped people to be good and moral even if they do not belong to any religion at all. Do you think they would be the same good people if the world had never know what religion is or what God is? I just want to turn the issue on its head and try and separate what we (society) are today and what we would be like without religion?

I understand what you are saying about not wishing to beleive in God because some good non-beleiving people may go to hell. But perhaps beleving is actually doing all things that a good moral person is doing. Although they may not even beleive in the existence of God they are in a way worshipping him without realising it? I beleive God is merciful and all knowing and judgement belongs to him only. In the Quran it says that even the trees and the birds do salat (worship) to Allah, I believe this worshiping is in the form of their existence and the fact that they are there!

10

Camille,

Good point. I'm not much familiar with the history of religion in primitive societies and its part in introducing the concept of morality, but generally speaking, I do think that it was definitely a strong medium in doing so. I do believe that primitive man had 'simpler' (another debatable word perhaps) psychology and philosophy, directly based on the depth of his knowledge and discoveries, among other factors. Given that, religion was easier and common way and it makes sense.

When I started the thread, I deliberately didn't include the historic context. I was simply looking at the present day. I am also interested about discussing the future part as I already mentioned. But that's sort of a separate discussion.

11

Oh, and on your "they are in a way worshipping him without realising it?" point, I think it is irrelevent to the common, big objective I am trying to point out to. My point is that whether you follow religion or not, as long as your making effort to that 'universal sense of morality' and righteousness you are fulfilling your duty as being a decent human being.

There are always going be people who believe in God and those who don't. It just does not mean that one should be more or less moral than the other. They both have the equal responsibilty to be morally good and righteous people. And that's where NYAhmadi's point comes in that morality is a subjective matter, how you are going define it uniformally for all? And in response my point is that we, as mankind, are getting closer and closer to that definition as we form new laws and apply new concepts of living to the norms of our society.