The Common conception about the critics of religion is one of the following.
-
They are ignorant… They actually dont know about the religion. Or they are misguided by the false propagenda. The true religion says something else. ( The conception of educated circle.)
-
They are wicked and enemies of God and since God is all Powerfull so they are doing nothing but destroying thereself. ( The conception of common people.)
Is it really the case with the critics of religion…
The common view is based on common projection by religion of the term "kafirs" , term "sin" and also the strict remarks of the islamic so called mollanas. ... About the Kafirs it is said that they are simply wicked people just because they had different faith. In accepting this statement a common person never considers that a kafir can think just like him, he has the same feelings etc. But He simply accepts the hard and fast rule of hating the kafirs because he is kafir. We have actually an un-natuaral image of a kafir in our minds from the child hood and this effects our minds, while dealing with the auspects related to kafirs. We just accept them as bad people and the people who deserve the punishment and the people who are by there wicked nature opposing islam and are the enemies of the muslims. Thats why I call this un-natural... Because the most of the cristians, jews, hindus etc are accepting there religions only because there parents had the same religion and because of their environment. It is totally same with most of us we(most) are muslims just because our parents are muslims... otherwise most of us dont have any distinguishing attributes from which one can recognise us as muslims. So How can be someone wicked just because his parents were the believers of some religion.
What is his fault in the belief of his parents and What credit we get from the belief of our parents?
While Considering the view of educated circle I must say that most of us had the belief of islam from our earlier life, And while going through our busy schedules We normally dont get much time to study much and Also most of the people didn’t get much encouragement to study more… So they carry the belief of there childhood to there youth and mature age… In such case when they hear any criticism on islam there response is normally that they dont have the sufficient knowldge… and secondly the objectioner is for sure wrong and he/she must correct himself by concerning to some mullah or concerning to some book which they dont know but they still know that the objectioner is wrong…
Is it not amazing that they know about the falsehood of objectioner, and they also accept that they dont have much knowldge… If they dont have much knowldge so why they are claiming that the objectioner is wrong..
We can try to get to the roots of such behavior… What I think as the correct explaination is that
**
" We believe in God because of FEAR, So When we hear any explicit objection it is fear which surrounds us and says that this objection is wrong… Our Fear have different shades it can be the fear of death, fear of hell, fear of unknown… So the reason We have for the religion is nothing but FEAR, that is why we accept it without knowing it."
**
There is another group of people which supports our suspended state by giving us mireclas of God… Or mirecals of Quran by showing science in the Quran. What they are actually doing,
**Such people using our believe on our common experience and science which we got while living in this world, to believe in religion. It is just like that if some one likes milk and he wants to eat something else which he dont like so he can take it easily by mixing it with milk, and there is the chance that the likeness which he had only for the milk, gradually shifts towards both. **
So What are the intentions of critics of religion… Considering all this my
Answer will be,
They are looking for sufficient reason to believe or dis-believe.
OR
Some of them who think that they reached to truth( can be any thing ). Sharing with others with reasons.
What we can do is simply listen to them critically and with the help of logic analyse them, ignoring the emotional constraints…
But We can convince both of them to some conclusion either in favor of religion or against religion… If we have sufficient reason to convince them…
Comments will be welcomed…