The Beginning of Confusion in Religion (Part 2)


Part 1

There is much religious confusion in the world regarding which religion is right; so much so that some men adopt a casual apathetic attitude towards the whole subject. Atheists say, “The Hindus live and die just as the Buddhists do. The Muslims and Mormons have their prophets, ceremonies, rituals, and saints just as the Christians do. The religious waters are, therefore, not clear but muddy.” And having ventured this bare philosophical inquiry, they lay in repose having grasped enough truth to satiate their human appetites.  However, if a man desires with all of his heart to know the truth, this is not enough. He will dive into the details, and perhaps may stumble upon a religion that accounts for this obscurity caused by religious confusion.  Perhaps that religion will be able to instruct him.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Beginning of Confusion in Religion (Part 2)

  1. And every religion claims to be “the true one”, but none stands out. They all claim to have some great truth, but in every case it is trasnmitted through special books, self-appointed holy men and evangelism. If one were truer than the others, I would expect it to actually be different in some substantive way.

    “And having ventured this bare philosophical inquiry, they lay in repose having grasped enough truth to satiate their human appetites.” – No that’s not it at all. We have grasped that the answers to our questions are not to be found in religion, and we do not waste out energy looking there any further. We turn our attention to the ways of answering questions that include a reality check, so we can have confidence in our answers instead of just “faith”.

  2. …if a man desires with all of his heart to know the truth…

    So why on earth would anyone look to faith-based beliefs when he or she knows a priori that religious belief has no means to test any assertions made about what is actually true in reality?

    One must make a conscious decision to either:

    a) allow reality to arbitrate truth claims made about it, or
    b) allow faith-based beliefs to arbitrate reality to fit the truth claims.

    One must choose, you see, because one cannot choose the first and then dip into the second for convenience without being found guilty of intellectual hypocrisy. This is why the methods of inquiry into reality used by science (a) and religion (b) are diametrically opposed – what we call incompatible methods. Of course, the religious must pay due respect to the knowledge produced by the first (because the trust the results with their lives on a daily basis) but rarely if ever appreciate how hypocritical they are being when they try to pay the same respect to the second, knowing full well that not one bit of testable knowledge, useful technology, practical application, or efficacious therapy has ever been derived using this second one. Most folk simply ignore that this abject methodological failure is a pretty good indication that it doesn’t work. In comparison, respecting reality to arbitrate claims made about it does work.

    It is in the comparing and contrasting between these incompatible methods where the confusion becomes rather glaring, and not the confusion within the religious community itself – those who pay ANY respect to the second method – whose tens of thousands of fractured sects shows quite clearly that none have any greater or lesser claim to what’s true; in this regard, all faith-based beliefs are equivocally clueless with no means available (other than belief) to differentiate between them regarding their competing claims about what is true in reality.

    So if one wishes to pay more than hypocritical lip service to desire with all of his heart to know the truth, a man must turn to his brain and leave his entrails out of the quest if he honestly wants to find out what’s true.

  3. “the answers to our questions are not to be found in religion”
    “all faith-based beliefs are equivocally clueless ”

    There is no room, in these statements, for man as he actually is. The atheists are urging man to become something else, the superman – to leave behind the way he is. They see no problem with calling most of their fellow men clueless and delusional. But, if some people managed to actually become the superman, the rest of humanity would rebel against him. And insomuch as the atheist has considered himself in that way, the ordinary man feels he has become strange.

    I’m not concerned with some unhumanly ideal. I seek to explain the world as it actually is, and not to ask it to be something else. Let there be religion. It is a true part of humanity.

    1. The atheists are urging man to become something else, the superman…

      “The atheists” (whoever they are) are doing no such thing. It’s not an organised community. So atheists will say one thing and some will say another. It’s very much a mixed bag.
      Supermen?
      Well, I’m no authority on comic fandom but I suspect that most atheists would lean towards more “Dark Knights” that the “Caped Crusader”

      They see no problem with calling most of their fellow men clueless and delusional.

      It’s the whole magical, invisible sky daddy thing. It’s about as clueless and delusional as you can get.

      “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
      -Douglas Adams

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s