Not from the stars do I my JUDGEMENT pluck

Edited: 21st May 2007.

As many have noticed, this blog (unlike many others) is not about my life. Because how I see it, writing what happens in my life or how I feel is such an unwise way of telling the readers the person I am. Sure, I can say that I did this or felt that (went shopping with friends, danced at some party, or fell in love etc). But it wouldn’t be unique if I did…

Though I do realize the purpose of blogs. Human nature has such a desire and need to be known. To make ourselves known that others care for us, that we do exist, that someone has cared enough to read about our lives. To leave our mark on this world.

In my most honest opinion however, I believe it to be better if I gave my readers a view of my real self. Not by telling you how I feel and what burger I ate today or movie I watched. But my views…my philosophy. For it is the most essential and the important part of what a person is, immortal compared to the fragile memory. What we still keep when everything is gone. And this…is my gift to you. My mark on the universe.

In my years of philosophical discussion, the theme of religion continues to be brought up (along with others like divine justice, perception, illusion, equality, freedom, goodness, art etc. Metaphysics, but religion has been the dominating theme in our discussions). Numerous convincing and logical points have been brought up questioning the idea of religion (note that although the majority are atheists/agonists, there is a group of religious people to present all sides in the discussion. Note also that certain subgroups of the atheist/ agonist side DO criticize the validity of points of their own side).

Despite numerous convincing and logically valid points however, the religious group continue to respond with “You won’t believe it until you believe in God”, or “it all depends on your faith”, or “you have to trust him to know the truth”. It seems that the people giving these answers fail to realize the circular reasoning behind it. It also appears that faith is the fundamental factor in the belief (making it somewhat subjective), which makes me question the psychological aspect of ‘faith’ (seeing that so many other people don’t believe, the first thing that came to my mind was individual differences). Therefore, I believe it is necessary to explore the psychology of faith and religious teachings (compared to philosophy), how it influences our rationality.

Note. By definition (and when generalized to a global scale), there is little difference between religion and delusion, extremely difficult to draw the line between them. Which is why I believe exploring the psychology (external) of religion is equality important as exploring the philosophy (internal) of it. I know this deviates from what I usually write. I’m not saying that religion is a delusion, but to those who are religious, now you know what it feels like for someone suffering from delusions, and trying to change delusions is difficult.

But where to begin? I believe it would be best to illustrate the intricacies and system of both philosophy and religion.

Religion (which I will generalize) is the belief of a higher order. It is this higher power which people worship, usually of the ‘good’ side of the continuum. Believing in such a system inevitably forces one to deny (whole or aspects of) other belief systems (i.e. a Christian denying Buddhism or Greek Orthodox or Atheism), consequently ignoring them. Students of religion are encouraged to have faith and trust in the higher power, for it is the central aspect of religion.

Philosophy is the rational deduction and reasoning of abstract concepts. This system encourages the questioning and criticism of the actual human reasoning. Students of philosophy are encouraged to question their own reasoning as well as others. Its limit is that it evolves (reasoning changes to be better, meaning that what is deducted may not always be the truth), and the fact that it’s limited by mans ability to comprehend (which grows in time).

[Note. If you believe any of this to be wrong or inaccurate, please contact me and correct me. But I think I summed it up pretty well by thinking of personal bias, and eliminating it.]

Now we are ready to begin.

As already stated, religion sits on the good side of the good/evil continuum. Meaning that its teachings are (inevitably to the human mind) of good nature. Within these teachings, certain morals or rules are taught. For example, killing is bad, stealing is bad, take care of others, and respect the elderly (the specificity of these teachings isn’t the focus here, it’s its effect which I will demonstrate later). For a person initially exposed to religious teachings (note that I’m not saying these teachings are bad), the mind subconsciously comprehends that “the rules and morals that this religion teaches is good, benefits everyone, and that everybody agrees with it”. The mind therefore automatically (and subconsciously) processes it as “if the teachings are good and true, then the rest must also be true too” (the rest being other teachings of the religion, like how the belief came to be and other stories). Simply speaking, a person sees that the religious system teaches good behavior and morals (that everyone believes is true), and automatically assumes the whole religious system to be true. This is a logical fallacy (forgot the Latin name), a flaw in human deductive reasoning which in truth renders it invalid. It is illogical thinking.

With this assumption made, one would hence go on to learn the teachings of the religious system. Assuming what was said in the previous paragraph was erased, an individual would justify the existence of the system (as in that it is true and supported) based on its teachings (teachings being what is in manuscripts/scrolls/other people teaching the teachings). This is circular reasoning (another form of logical fallacy), rendering the argument invalid. To illustrate this simply, from the teachings a person believes in the existence of the system (i.e. a higher order exists, stories of deus ex machina did happen), which is supported by the teachings themselves. In other words, it is like believing that ‘person X’ did something because ‘person X’ said so. [Another example taken from Wikipedia: 1) Suppose Paul does not lie when he speaks, 2) Paul speaks, 3) Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.]

Now you understand why faith is a fundamental part of religion. Because despite such flaws in human reasoning (in addition to the paradoxes and problems associated with the system), faith is what enables one to continue in learning and understanding the teachings. Note that it’s the teachings only, not the paradoxes and problems associated with it. Faith being trust, as believers place trust in the system. As one who doesn’t place enough trust in the system or the higher power are considered somewhat weak (lacking faith) and/or not really part of the group (to those who have faith). Take note of the circular logic here, as explained previously. But this presents us with another issue, and issue dealing with faith/trust.

Edit: 21st May 2007. Upon further metaphysical thought, faith is NOT trust. There is a difference. Trust is based on past experience, it is earned (for example, trusting your mother because she hasn't betrayed you in the past. Not trusting a stranger because you don't have past experience with him/her). Faith is based on emotion, it is based on hope, without rationality, because to base something on emotion is not rational (for example, having faith in a stranger because you feel something with them, as in a connection when it's in fact an emotion. Having faith that your brother will not kill another person solely because he is your brother and you feel a strong emotional bond with him). I apologize for my ignorance, but now I know better.

[Consider this example: As you are walking in the countryside, you see a stranger in the distance walking towards you. You greet the stranger and he greets you back, and soon you both become great friends for weeks knowing everything about him. Under a campfire one night, he asks you “Lend me your possessions and I will reward you tomorrow”. You would obviously trust him and happily give it to him. Now consider the same question when you first greet the stranger in the countryside. Would you trust him and do what he says? Obviously no. Your trust in him was built in the time you spent with him; your trust grows as your friendship grows.]

Trust is to be earned. There are words for those who do not question and understand all before making a decision: naïve, foolish, impulsive, ignorant etc. It is wiser to know everything and ask every possible question before making a decision (especially one so important as belief). With so many problematic issues in relation to religious systems (i.e. the problem of evil, the problem of omnipotence, the problem of omniscience, problems of immortality, the problem of divine justice, problems of original sin, the problem of petitionary power, the problem of autonomous agents), and some in support of such a system (i.e. the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, Pascal’s Wager). One would wonder why believers of the system would be so confident in the system as to place so much faith and trust in it (not all these arguments/issues have been resolved yet), and why believers are so eager in learning the teachings (i.e. the books and scriptures telling stories and figures of long ago), teachings based on the system.

Isn’t it more rational and wise to understand and resolve these initial issues first (the issues stated above) before learning the teachings? Where is the purpose in learning complex teachings (i.e. complex books/scripts) of the system when one does not even have a clear mind of confidence in the basis of the system (which the teachings are based). Obviously philosophy seeks to resolve these issues, so why would so many people rather look towards religion? Isn’t it ignorant to take one side without considering the viewpoints of all sides? You wouldn’t choose a faction to fight for without considering the policies of other factions and question your own faction first would you?

To those who have already dedicated their time and effort to the system may (I believe) find it most difficult to revert back and look at these issues. To move away from a system or group to which one has lived to identify with, it becomes part of the person. Moving away from the group will be like moving away from a big part of yourself, like losing something that you hold dearly. So moving away from the belief system would be a psychologically aversive decision. One will also fear that it may make them acknowledge and realize possible flaws of the system, the fear that they have dedicated their energy and life to nothing. The possibility that they believed in something foolish (saying it to be ‘foolish’ just to give insight to the mindset of the person) is in itself devastating. Like waking up from a world of harmony and stability into chaos, where nothing is certain and nothing is stable. Many would rather revert back and forget they ever realized the reality (you won’t know how this feels unless you’ve experienced it yourself). And so, the common response is to continue with the teachings and ignoring arguments (or simultaneously performing an argumentum ad hominem), to continue in having faith/trust.

It may also be difficult to break away from the belief system, to in a way oppose the majority (that being the group in which you belong), as the group/majority is a powerful body. Powerful enough to pressure an individual to conform and stay at their place in agreement with the majority. It is human nature to conform, as conformity leads to harmony, and conflict is psychologically stressful.

“The minority is generally formed by those who have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed by gangs who have no opinion.”
Soren Kierkegaard (1850)

I’m not sure how to end this, because I can go on more about it. But it’s best for the mind to think of things itself. The purpose of this blog isn’t to bash religion; it is to make one aware of a correct and wiser path in choosing a belief (whether it is Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology (lol), Agnotism, Atheism etc). Only a fool chooses to live out an illusion than reality. Make the wiser path towards belief and understanding, it’s a life long path so don’t choose the direction so early. Think first and consider before deciding. Religion and philosophy, you decide. Make your own judgment.