Post by instanterik on Nov 9, 2005 0:22:23 GMT -5
To me religion is a means of suspending your own doubts, and putting your trust into an idea greater than yourself. It augments your own willpower and strength. Whether or not anything responds to this trust doesn’t really matter, as long as you can believe that something is listening.
I guess that’s the idea that I’m really trying to get at; belief in some form of a god will have largely the same effect as whether or not that god really does exist. For example, when praying to God to give you strength, you will feel as though you’ve been granted strength if you can convince yourself that there is a God to receive it from. Religion acts as a sort of reservoir of extra strength that people may tap into when they are overwhelmed; what the actual source of this strength is doesn’t really matter, so long as it is available.
Of course this idea may be abused. People may use the power of belief not to gain resolve or healing, but instead to harm others or justify inaction. This may be a conscious decision, or the result of good intentions gone astray. For example, the idea of divine judgment allows a person to take the view of, “I will let God sort it out” or “It is God’s will” and will use this notion to justify their apathy toward an event.
In addition to being a means of gaining strength, spiritualism also allows you to release your own fears and worries. You don’t need to worry about what may await you after death, and whether there is any real meaning behind life, as you may once more assume that your religion’s answers to those questions are the correct ones, or that it is something for a higher being to worry about. You are left with either a lack of concern regarding your actions, or a relatively clear guide by which to live by.
With all of this said, I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of this sort of hidden power or righteousness. I can see the enormous value that belief has, but to me it seems too much like wearing blinders; losing your fear of something by simply blocking it out. By first assuming the rules you live by are right, you leave yourself free to spend your efforts following them rather than examining their actual validity. You don’t need to concern yourself with your peripheral vision, you simply need to follow what is directly ahead of you.
Another analogy that springs to mind is with painting. When painting it is easy to lose yourself in the simple rendering of a given area of the piece; it swallows your attention entirely, and only requires basic decision making. However, if you do this it will often be at a cost to the piece as a whole. You must stay conscious of not only the individual segments, but also how those segments relate to one another.
It could be argued that it is possible to actually question the rules set forth by a religion, to refine them, and still maintain faith in God. My response to this is why would you bother? Why not just take those refined concepts, and leave out the mysticism? To get back to my previous analogies, if you are aware of your peripheral vision, or the overall composition of your painting, why would you intentionally limit yourself to what is directly in front of you, or to the individual segment?
I guess that’s the idea that I’m really trying to get at; belief in some form of a god will have largely the same effect as whether or not that god really does exist. For example, when praying to God to give you strength, you will feel as though you’ve been granted strength if you can convince yourself that there is a God to receive it from. Religion acts as a sort of reservoir of extra strength that people may tap into when they are overwhelmed; what the actual source of this strength is doesn’t really matter, so long as it is available.
Of course this idea may be abused. People may use the power of belief not to gain resolve or healing, but instead to harm others or justify inaction. This may be a conscious decision, or the result of good intentions gone astray. For example, the idea of divine judgment allows a person to take the view of, “I will let God sort it out” or “It is God’s will” and will use this notion to justify their apathy toward an event.
In addition to being a means of gaining strength, spiritualism also allows you to release your own fears and worries. You don’t need to worry about what may await you after death, and whether there is any real meaning behind life, as you may once more assume that your religion’s answers to those questions are the correct ones, or that it is something for a higher being to worry about. You are left with either a lack of concern regarding your actions, or a relatively clear guide by which to live by.
With all of this said, I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of this sort of hidden power or righteousness. I can see the enormous value that belief has, but to me it seems too much like wearing blinders; losing your fear of something by simply blocking it out. By first assuming the rules you live by are right, you leave yourself free to spend your efforts following them rather than examining their actual validity. You don’t need to concern yourself with your peripheral vision, you simply need to follow what is directly ahead of you.
Another analogy that springs to mind is with painting. When painting it is easy to lose yourself in the simple rendering of a given area of the piece; it swallows your attention entirely, and only requires basic decision making. However, if you do this it will often be at a cost to the piece as a whole. You must stay conscious of not only the individual segments, but also how those segments relate to one another.
It could be argued that it is possible to actually question the rules set forth by a religion, to refine them, and still maintain faith in God. My response to this is why would you bother? Why not just take those refined concepts, and leave out the mysticism? To get back to my previous analogies, if you are aware of your peripheral vision, or the overall composition of your painting, why would you intentionally limit yourself to what is directly in front of you, or to the individual segment?