A few important questions to consider
I am just thinking about what are some right questions to ask when one is asking about religion. So I have decided to try and to logically ask a few questions to reach a conclusion about religion. Of course, these questions and my answers will veer towards Christianity but these are nonetheless questions that we should all consider.
To start off, when one is asking about religion, the first question that one ought to ask is why is there religion in the first place? Many people have different answers and many people may not think about it and take religion as granted. Perhaps one might even want to ask what is religion in the first place? But since we intrinsically know what is a religion, I will leave this question aside and focus on the why part. I will attempt this question by making a few observations, without actually providing a clear cut answer for this. Firstly, everyone wants the truth in their life. Tell me, who likes to be told a lie? Intrinsically, everyone is seeking the truth in life and the truth in their lives. These are truths on how to live their lives, and truth about their lives. Now the question within the question is why they are seeking these truths? Secondly, everyone seems to be seeking some sort of significance in their lives. Be it a self made person, an altruistic person or even an apathetic person, we see our significance as a human being, and wants to seek a certain significance. By this, I mean people wanted to be treated the way they think they ought to be treated - as human beings. Thirdly, people are always looking for some unexplained 'force' that will explain the world around them. For evolutionist, it's the force of the random chance. For theists, it's the theistic God, and for pantheists, it may be the universe or the gods within them. Even in Hegelistic and Marxist dialectic world, an implicit force is working to move history. But everyone looks to some sort of thing outside of their own existence. Of course the question within the question is what is the deal behind looking for something that is more transcendent than them?
So the first question to ask is why religion in the first place. This alone leads to other questions. The second question is to ask about the differences about different religions. The common assertion is that all roads lead to Rome and therefore, all religions lead to God. Is it so? The philosophical foundation here is to establish that truth, by definition, is exclusive. The law of non-contradiction allows no two contradictory statements to be the same thing. The different religions may have similarities in their teachings but how about the core of these religions? After all, what these different religions are is that they attempt to explain the sub-questions asked within that first questions. And from what I know, Buddhism expouses an atheistic worldview, in that there is no 'gods' in the original teaching and the Buddha worship was only instituted later by the disciples of Buddhism. This therefore excluded the theistic, polytheistic and pantheistic worldviews. Some pantheistic worldviews try to include every other worldviews, but by doing so, it therefore excludes the exclusive religions that it tries to include. Polytheistic worldviews, such as the Chinese syncretic religions that are common practised in Singapore, naturally exclude the monotheistic worldviews. When Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, the Life, He naturally excluded all the other religions in the world. Islam, too, naturally excludes the other worldviews by claiming that the Quran is the perfect revelation of God and that the Quran is purest in its original language.
So knowing that there are differences, we need to ask another question, which is logical. Which religion, then, is really the one that should be believed? The postmodern world teaches an approach of designer religions, just take what is true to you. Yet, if truth is exclusive, then no two religion in its very core is the same. Three issues to look into. My favourite which are the philosophical reality, existential reality and historical reliability. Philosophical reality and existential reality have more to do with answering the questions of origins, meaning, morality and destiny. This means that at an abstract and experiential level, does the religion answer the four questions? And the philosophical reality must match the existential reality. Historical reliability is something that I have talked about at great length in previous posts, but it suffices to be mentioned here that a religion that refuses to ground itself in historical reality has no place to demand allegiance from people. Just ask ourselves honestly, how historical reliable are the texts or claims of the religions around you? If Jesus is a historical figure, then is the gospels reliable enough to give a true picture of Him? Can the stories of Guan Yin and Brahma be verified by historical evidences? Can the Quran, which appear some hundred years after the NT, be tested in its historical claims of Jesus?
The last question to consider is more of an emotional one, rather than an intellectual one. Where do I want to place my faith? Do I dare to accept the facts of the religions being laid down in front of me? Today, we have a few major choices: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism. Beyond these choices are other minor choices. Today, is it enough for me to 'inherit' my parents' faith? If I'm born into a Taoist family, then does it mean that I need to be a Taoist?
I try to ask as much questions as possible in this and just lay down the observations and facts. And I dun, for a moment, think that these are the only questions to consider. The lists ought not to be exhaustive. Yet, I think for us, as people who seeks spiritual significance and wants to think seriously about religion, we have to think about these questions honestly.
To start off, when one is asking about religion, the first question that one ought to ask is why is there religion in the first place? Many people have different answers and many people may not think about it and take religion as granted. Perhaps one might even want to ask what is religion in the first place? But since we intrinsically know what is a religion, I will leave this question aside and focus on the why part. I will attempt this question by making a few observations, without actually providing a clear cut answer for this. Firstly, everyone wants the truth in their life. Tell me, who likes to be told a lie? Intrinsically, everyone is seeking the truth in life and the truth in their lives. These are truths on how to live their lives, and truth about their lives. Now the question within the question is why they are seeking these truths? Secondly, everyone seems to be seeking some sort of significance in their lives. Be it a self made person, an altruistic person or even an apathetic person, we see our significance as a human being, and wants to seek a certain significance. By this, I mean people wanted to be treated the way they think they ought to be treated - as human beings. Thirdly, people are always looking for some unexplained 'force' that will explain the world around them. For evolutionist, it's the force of the random chance. For theists, it's the theistic God, and for pantheists, it may be the universe or the gods within them. Even in Hegelistic and Marxist dialectic world, an implicit force is working to move history. But everyone looks to some sort of thing outside of their own existence. Of course the question within the question is what is the deal behind looking for something that is more transcendent than them?
So the first question to ask is why religion in the first place. This alone leads to other questions. The second question is to ask about the differences about different religions. The common assertion is that all roads lead to Rome and therefore, all religions lead to God. Is it so? The philosophical foundation here is to establish that truth, by definition, is exclusive. The law of non-contradiction allows no two contradictory statements to be the same thing. The different religions may have similarities in their teachings but how about the core of these religions? After all, what these different religions are is that they attempt to explain the sub-questions asked within that first questions. And from what I know, Buddhism expouses an atheistic worldview, in that there is no 'gods' in the original teaching and the Buddha worship was only instituted later by the disciples of Buddhism. This therefore excluded the theistic, polytheistic and pantheistic worldviews. Some pantheistic worldviews try to include every other worldviews, but by doing so, it therefore excludes the exclusive religions that it tries to include. Polytheistic worldviews, such as the Chinese syncretic religions that are common practised in Singapore, naturally exclude the monotheistic worldviews. When Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, the Life, He naturally excluded all the other religions in the world. Islam, too, naturally excludes the other worldviews by claiming that the Quran is the perfect revelation of God and that the Quran is purest in its original language.
So knowing that there are differences, we need to ask another question, which is logical. Which religion, then, is really the one that should be believed? The postmodern world teaches an approach of designer religions, just take what is true to you. Yet, if truth is exclusive, then no two religion in its very core is the same. Three issues to look into. My favourite which are the philosophical reality, existential reality and historical reliability. Philosophical reality and existential reality have more to do with answering the questions of origins, meaning, morality and destiny. This means that at an abstract and experiential level, does the religion answer the four questions? And the philosophical reality must match the existential reality. Historical reliability is something that I have talked about at great length in previous posts, but it suffices to be mentioned here that a religion that refuses to ground itself in historical reality has no place to demand allegiance from people. Just ask ourselves honestly, how historical reliable are the texts or claims of the religions around you? If Jesus is a historical figure, then is the gospels reliable enough to give a true picture of Him? Can the stories of Guan Yin and Brahma be verified by historical evidences? Can the Quran, which appear some hundred years after the NT, be tested in its historical claims of Jesus?
The last question to consider is more of an emotional one, rather than an intellectual one. Where do I want to place my faith? Do I dare to accept the facts of the religions being laid down in front of me? Today, we have a few major choices: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism. Beyond these choices are other minor choices. Today, is it enough for me to 'inherit' my parents' faith? If I'm born into a Taoist family, then does it mean that I need to be a Taoist?
I try to ask as much questions as possible in this and just lay down the observations and facts. And I dun, for a moment, think that these are the only questions to consider. The lists ought not to be exhaustive. Yet, I think for us, as people who seeks spiritual significance and wants to think seriously about religion, we have to think about these questions honestly.
WOOHOO bro I like this post ;)
ReplyDeleteYou first brought out the intrinsic nature in humans in the sense that they always try to perceive a higher being and how the truth should be told.
Then you brought out some of Romans, that's why you were reading it during Carl's junior rite :P
I think you should do a post on Objective Moral truth hehehehehehe!!!! , as in what it is(essence), and how should it be incorporated into our lives(why we should obey it).
Then through the Objective Moral Truth theory LINK to God, for God SHOULD be the one whom truth comes from :)