Holy fuck this is long… hope whoever reads this has got the patience. But seriously, I think it’s a good read – not because I’m an interesting person (far from it) but there are a lot of points here that are really worth thinking about especially if you’re a person of faith.

Okay, so I brushed on the “brighter side of things” with regards to what Religion could bring to the table; in the context of my Recollection experience.

Perhaps that was the Yang… now for some Yin to balance the scales 😉

This post is mostly about a concern I raised to a friend while we engaged in some mental masturbation on life and religion:

Carlo: siguro scary lang to think kse most of the “faithful” are naive ¹ At least, based on experience in a sense
Carlo: how they can be agents of suffering PRECISELY because of their “skewed/misguided” religious beliefs ² how they tend to take doctrine at face value without even bothering to evaluate it in context of the reality of the human condition.
Roy: true
Roy: that raises the question of their “faithfulness” then
Roy: and their understanding of what it means to believe

And yes, I’m aware that I’ve posted this during the holy week – pure coincidence 😉

Now, if it wasn’t already obvious from any of my past posts on religion; I’m a skeptic. I’m not an atheist, but neither am I buying into the teachings of Religion hook, line, and sinker. Despite my belief in a higher being, one marked difference I have from a regular “faithful” person is that I make it a point never to tackle “moral issues” through the lens of Religion. Because, quite honestly, it tends to do more harm than good. Especially when dealing with gray areas – and we know life is chock-full of gray areas 😉

Overrated

While my experience in the recollection did spark some interesting topics for my own personal introspection, there was nothing “groundbreaking” as far as it being presented through the lens of Religion.

To me, presenting those points in the context of Religion merely makes them palatable even to those who are of “simpler minds.” Granted, justifying the existence of “suffering” – no matter the context (religious, objective, etc.) is not an easy task to undertake – much less to get people to “come to terms” with. But Religion accomplishes that somehow – and even makes it seem that it’s the best thing in the world to experience.

Christianity, as an example, is famously known for glorifying such a “failed state” of existence (suffering) ³ Like I said, suffering out of love is a symptom that you may or may not be doing the right thing… but it doesn’t have to end there. Nobody wants to suffer, and as long as the parties involved actively seek out solutions, suffering can be minimized or even eliminated entirely. – as the quintessential image of its savior is that of a suffering/dead person. ⁴ Why couldn’t they have picked someone similarly kind, virtuous, and enlightened like Buddha? Or if you wanted some more “excitement” why not try the Greek gods? Wouldn’t it be infinitely cooler to have that kind of a religion?

Somehow, Religion’s endurance in the world has made it achieve what I’d like to call “hamburger status” – in which it is near universally accepted as “tasty and good!” Now, lets say that suffering is the “vegetable” that nobody likes, but will have to take. Put the vegetable in the hamburger, and you have yourself a more “palatable” way of consuming something you would otherwise want to avoid like the plague.

Religion provides a convenient means to simplify otherwise complicated concepts to something “consumable” for anyone – even to the simplest, uneducated, un-thinking person. It can make something look ridiculously simple and obvious – even if it’s far from being simple and obvious… realistic (to the complexities of the human condition) even – and that’s the danger I’m seeing.

Whoever said that “Religion is the opium of the masses,” seemed to have been on to something; as that statement is becoming more and more true as societies “progress.” There’s nothing wrong with believing in religion(s) or in the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or God(s), but we have to admit that to some degree, Religion has hijacked morality – which is becoming more dangerous than helpful in modern societies. People who refuse to come to terms with how the world currently works, are always faced with dilemmas and issues because they cannot reconcile it with their particular brand of dogma. Hence they just hide behind their beliefs to make themselves feel better; thinking that everyone else is wrong – because how could their faith be possibly wrong, right?

So, it really seems like an escape more than anything else. That’s why the phrase “opium of the masses” seems to be a pretty good description for those cases – and sadly, I think it’s only going to get worse. And the comments below (which I found on the intarwebz) put emphasis on that concern.

The problem with religion is dogma. All religions suffer from this. It is not enough to say love thy neighbor as thyself; they all have to add some asinine rules that are not (or shouldn’t be) relevant in today’s society.

Religion was a good way of explaining things, like a few hundred years ago when we didn’t have a clue about these things. But nowadays, I really don’t see a place for it in modern society. It just gets in the way.

Credit Where Credit is Due

Now to be fair to Religion, it’s not that it’s there to purposefully “brainwash” the people for some evil grand scheme of molesting its followers, or gathering shit-tons of non-taxable funds/donations to give a life of luxury to those in its upper echelon. I still honestly believe that it has tried (and is trying) its best to give societies proper directions on human well-being if and when it could do so.

Simply put, I still think the “intent” or goal of Religion is pure – no matter what we’re seeing in the news today – or what the comments above claim.

Clear and Present Danger

Still, it doesn’t negate the fact that it is more capable of doing harm than good in this era. The real problem isn’t because of Religion’s “intentions” – it’s mostly because of its relevance, and execution – and both feed off of each other.

Religion can tend to cling to arcane values which are simply not relevant [especially] in modern pluralistic societies, and when faced with such a reality, the knee jerk reaction of the faithful (especially the fundamentalists) are to steer everyone back to those arcane values. The Church may consider this method as “returning to God” – while an increasing number of critical thinkers would consider it more as “returning to the dark ages.”

But after all is said and done, just like I implied with that chat log at the beginning of the post; the most dangerous problem is really us humans.

No matter how well-meaning/pure the concept (or even creation) ⁵ If you are of the persuasion that Religions are established as a means to “control” large groups more easily than having a military of Religion – people will misunderstand/misinterpret it – and use it as an excuse for every idiotic thing they can do to justify hurting others (whether intentionally or not).

This is why I avoid Religion when dealing with morality; because for one, it cramps my style 😉 Kidding aside: if I applied my own “limited” (and most probably wrong) understanding of Religion/dogma to govern my decisions – all I really accomplished is making sure I’ve got my ass covered in case I mess up; because I can always use it as an excuse for a mistake that could’ve been avoided by simply thinking clearly/objectively.

To explain what I mean: the story of Abraham never sat well with me. In fact, lemme just admit that I think God was a major dick in that story. For one, as someone who’s supposed to be omni-benevolent, (that’s ALL LOVING in case you missed it) can you really justify a “test” as cruel as that? I don’t give a flying fuck if God never intended to let him continue… to me, putting that kind of emotional anguish on a person is inexcusable.

Now granted, events in the OT are myths, but you can see how “arcanely skewed” that type of “morality” is – especially when you try imagining someone pulling that same shit in the modern world. When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that you prove your faith by taking another life whether it be a joke or not? That’s right, you don’t because that sort of shit is reserved for suicide bombers and other crazy people.

And yet, amazingly, we have a story about the highest being in the universe condoning exactly that way of thinking… and what’s more amazing is that succumbing to such a thing is considered as a virtue, and people celebrate it!

Then ironically, these same people are appalled by the actions of terrorists? Don’t they realize that that particular mindset is exactly how the [religious] terrorists justify what they do? So if believers accept the story of Abraham as “soundly moral,” and “worth emulating” – then they have no right judging terrorists.

Objectively Speaking

So, while presenting such concepts through the lens of religion is totally fine – as it’s certainly better than not getting the points across at all. But now that the world has “evolved” into a much more complicated “system” – where we have a plurality of beliefs and cultures blending with each other, I’m not sure if the “convenience of the hamburger” is the optimal method of answering life’s more complicated questions anymore. Perhaps when the world was much simpler, just as the earlier comment suggested – but now, I’m not so sure.

Still, it is possible to navigate in such as system productively, without having to be enslaved to dogma. The question is how you go about it.

If you would notice the difference in how a critical thinker, and a simpleton would “synthesize” a concept presented through religion, the latter will usually accept it because “religion says it’s true – so it must be true” and should something unfortunate happen because of it, it’s God’s will.

The more critical thinkers on the other hand would have seen it as something obvious – regardless of the context it was presented in. We try not to cause suffering not because we’ll go to heaven or hell, not because it’s what God wants of us, not because there’s a reward at the end – but simply because any decent human would (or should) give a shit about the well-being of their fellow men.

Also, critical thinkers are more open to questioning/challenging established “best practices” depending on the situation – as they are aware that life isn’t so simple that you can just use some “commandment” to condemn stem-cell research, or say a rape victim that wants an abortion, or a person who loves someone… of the same sex.

If you think my arguments are still weak, then lets try this:

Cris sent me a link to this TED talk about how Science can answer moral questions.

I’ve taken the liberty to transcribe the more important points.

1:28 “Values,” are a certain kind of fact – they are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

2:10 There is no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I’ve ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience (and its possible changes)

3:49 There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish whether or not we understand these truths – and morality relates to these truths. So when talking about values, we are talking about facts.

I guess these lines explain what I’ve been trying to say earlier. That you can and will arrive at the same “moral truths” if you just have a clear head. Religion tends to put “unnecessary baggage” which can just complicate things if you don’t know which things you can afford to filter out. ⁶ As stated earlier, Religion seems to not be content with the golden rule; they all have to add so much qualifications that aren’t relevant in today’s society

9:28 Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions; so for instance if it’s really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie – and if you can find an exception; we’ll then there is no such thing as moral truth.

Now why would we think this!? Consider by analogy, the game of Chess; if you’re going to play good Chess, a principle like “don’t lose your queen” is very good to follow. But clearly it admits of exceptions; there are moments when losing your queen is a brilliant thing to do – there are moments where its the only good thing you can do. And yet, Chess is a domain of perfect objectivity – the fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all.

I believed I touched that earlier when I said critical thinkers can afford to make exceptions depending on the situation – as they are aware of the complexity of the human condition – and aren’t naive enough to reduce life to a system that can be addressed by stubborn dogma.

If you actually watched the video, the discussion from 10:15-12:55 shows the need for a balance. And while that concept seems universally obvious – we don’t realize that most of the time, when we let dogma dictate our morality, everything gets skewed too far to the left.

13:11 Now the irony from my perspective is that the people who seem to generally agree with me, and who think there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogs (of one form or another). And, of course, they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind. Not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being.

In fact, the endurance of Religion as a lens in which most people view moral questions has separated most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering. This is why we spend our time talking about things like gay marraige and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation, or poverty or any other hugely consequetial issue.

17:17 – It is possible for individuals or even whole cultures to care about the wrong things. Which is to say that it is possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.

Again, it emphasizes my worries; that because something that should’ve been objectively obvious ⁷ that is to say could be arrived at with or without a belief system was seen through the lens of religion – suddenly all other dogmas are revered as absolute – and are precisely the cause of needless suffering.

At the end of the day, Religion will endure. I’m not sure that its a good or bad thing given what I’ve just said – but if it really wants to be of any benefit to human society in the future, it’ll really have to re-evaluate itself from the ground up. Else, like the comments said, it just will get in the way – and worse; people do not, cannot, or will not realize it – and we will be put in a constant state of turmoil because of it.

---

There was also talk about how “genuine” a feeling of sincerity (in this case it’s love) could be generated falsely by dogma as well. Here’s an extreme case:

DURING Q&A … you can love someone in the context of a truly delusional belief system. So that you can say like “Because I knew my gay son was gonna go to Hell if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off – and that was the most compassionate thing I could do.” If you get all those “parts” aligned, yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of “love.”

But again, then we have to talk about “well being” in a larger context; it’s all of us in this together; it’s not one man feeling ecstasy and the blowing himself up in a bus.

Thankfully, the world has grown a bit wiser, which is why dogma (which is what a lot of Religions thrive on) is slowly going away – in favor of actual well-reasoned thinking. While the example above shows the extremes dogma can put an illusion of morality where there isn’t, it also can be present in the more “banal” aspects of human life.

While the more civilized people don’t engage in mass murder because they believe there will be 72 virgins in the afterlife waiting for them, we still make stupid errors based on our religious beliefs. Like abandoning people we care about simply because we think its what God wants us to do.

I’ll use my mom as an example: She’s now (re)married to a Jew (she’s Roman Catholic btw). And I remember the time when she IMed me asking for marriage advice How weird is that; your Mom asking you advice about marriage – when you yourself aren’t yet. Moreso advice on marrying someone other than your father.

My Mom, for those who know her, is one of those devout types like you wouldn’t believe. And yes, she is one of those simple-minded followers of the faith that I personally am frustrated with. Anwyay, going back, her concern was basically this: She didn’t know if she should continue a relationship with this man simply because she felt that it was “wrong” to be of two different religions. Ridiculously simple as that.

Now we all know what type of person I am, so I didn’t hold back: I reprimanded her. Something I had said before in an old post came rushing back upon hearing her concern.

My opinion on a person is based on their merit as individuals… not their “beliefs.” Because honestly, if it takes something like “religion” to make you or me treat people fairly, then I don’t think we even deserve friends. Or worse; if it’s precisely religion that actually makes you decide to make or break bonds with other people – then I think there’s something seriously wrong with you. You’re essentially using something, which you ultimately can never be sure of, as a basis to interact with someone clearly present in your plane of existence.

I told her how stupid it was to stifle her love for someone just because some “system” might frown upon it. How she even would consider leaving someone she loves (and loves her) just because they believed in different things. I pointed out that the guy had every right to have the same reservations, but he obviously valued his feelings for her more than those issues – and that if she truly loved him, isn’t it only fair to give the same courtesy at the very least? I questioned what mattered more to her – what makes her happy or what makes others happy? Then I went into more “practical” concerns; such as the chances of finding a “storybook partner” given her age (and physical condition).

Long story short, she’s now happily married to him (I don’t think either of them even had to change religions) and is very content and fulfilled.

Yet this was a bittersweet victory for me as well, because she did consult with a priest (as if what I said hadn’t made enough sense already), and was given the go-ahead. Her being her, she probably used that as a basis for deciding, instead of all the friggin’ obvious and profound points I’ve just raised to her.

What if the priest she consulted wasn’t as open minded, and disapproved of the relationship? I couldn’t help but think of how much damage dogma could’ve done to her had she blindly used its “moral compass” to decide on their relationship. I couldn’t help but realize that how a naive view of religion could’ve the ended her “happiness” before it could even begin. Simply because she followed something other than her heart.

What if she ended the relationship, and ended up being much less happier than she could’ve been… till her dying days – what then would she have said? It was God’s will?

So you see my frustration with religion in that sense; how something that should’ve been so simple and obvious has been clouded because of it. “Suffering out of love” aside, isn’t it a fairly simple matter to love someone – I mean to simply acknowledge and express the sentiment of love? I find it tragic that people even have to debate wether or not to love someone when they clearly do (like in my mom’s case) – your heart already knows the answer – why would you let something external like religious dogma interfere with what you intrinsically know, and feel, and are capable of doing – especially if its something as beautiful as loving another person?

So in a nutshell, the point I wish to get across ultimately is to believe in whatever you want – but make sure you do not hurt other people because of it. Simple as that. I said in a previous post that you can believe in a rock for all I care as long as it makes you a better person.

And what makes a person good or bad is how they deal with various relationships that surround them – like Mr. Harris said, it’s about being aware of the well-being of conscious creatures. And it beckons back to me stating why I put more stock in a person’s efforts rather than their beliefs. Because whether or not there’s an afterlife, whether or not there’s a God. Whether or not humans get to the point where science or religion will be considered to be more authoritative than the other, it’s all speculative at this point in our lives; we simply cannot say.

But despite that, one thing is true, we exist in the same plane [of existence] – why do we insist in undermining our relationships with one another; relationships which are real and even tangible – in favor of uncertainties?

Sure, we could talk about faith; faith is believing something to be real regardless of it’s “provability” – and it’s perfectly fine to believe in that – since that’s what also brings hope.

But it begs the question; why cannot at least we put more importance to the things we already know to be real – like human relationships? The existence of humans and their relationships with their fellow men need not be proven by faith – because it is verifiable fact at some point; even if it’s just between two people. We physically exist in this world and our decisions and actions affect others – why do we insist in letting something “less certain” override our capacity to recognize those relationships and act more rashly because of it? Why would a suicide bomber prefer to believe in killing himself for the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife (which may or may not be true) rather than realizing how his actions in this world this world affect others? ⁸ Ok granted, 72 virgins all to yourself would be schweeeeet! But even if that was certain, should it really be enough to justify taking a life?

It’s just disheartening how people tend to value/prioritize the wrong things, and end up hurting others because of it – when there are so many ways of tackling an issue that could satisfy even opposing parties. Why do the faithful tend to fixate on single-minded solutions to very complex problems which sometimes require exceptions to their “rules.’

It just feeds off on itself on an endless loop – and that’s why we never learn, because we never really want to learn. We just take the “opium” and feel better about ourselves.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

I want to end this post on a positive note, to find some way to reconcile the different concerns mentioned in this post. Interestingly enough, it seems to have come full circle to my previous post on love: it really boils down to the golden rule; to simply love one another – and to not let anything get in the way of your capacity of giving that love.

I know, it sounds so cheesy and like such a cop-out answer. But honestly, if you think about, the first step is awareness, and understanding then action – all of which need to be done in the context of love if it is to mean anything productive; you have to love the human race enough to take the time to actually care, be aware, understand, and act for the greater good of your species – regardless if it’s a relationship between one person, a group, or a whole society.