Which is better: a world with NO RELIGION or a world with ONE RELIGION or a world with MANY RELIGIONS? Merely looking at the question, I agreed it is a complex question, however, I must confess, the probability of single religion would make the world a better world is low. Basically because there would only be the lead and the serf, and if there were the lead and the serf where choice would be limited to the serf due to single religion, there would be high probability for the lead to be power corrupt and as a consequence, totalitarianism could easily be the order of the day. Moreover it is due to many religions that most lead are trying as much as possible to be good when it may not actually be the case (that they are good). I mean most religious institutes we know today, may not be as fascinating as they tend to be if there was no competitor or competition of members maintenance. More so, if there is one religion, it would lead to determinism, and as i believed determinism does not elongate discussion of morality and as well as any aspect of discussion... (Due to the bone of contention, lets leave determinism aside). But to avoid the above problems it is not the better option to choose no religion, that is to say there should be no religion. Though many have argued that religion has done more harms than good. Which as a result they wish the absence of religion. But nevertheless, some argued otherwise which I tend to support. Religion might have done more harms than good for whatever reason they have. Or maybe because of the authoritative aspect of religion as some has seen it to be. But since Im not here to argue that, but to say whether there should be religion or not. Here, religion which bring the existence of God into play is the one Im concerned with not the secular one. Though this God may not exist and may exist because to me there is yet to be an adequate reason to prove the existence of God or to prove the non-existence of God. But what we need in religion is just the concept of God, to just serve as a perfect being who has the ability to see all things and punish things when require. Though this God may not be the actual being responsible for this punishment. But since some things are termed as taboo which are related to do and dont of the gods or God. And when people go against this(do and dont), consequence mostly follows. With this, we can to some extents conclude that religion should be in existence so as to create fear of consequence in human mind and so as to improve social morality. I mean the existence of religion makes morality (fairness) more effective (to a large extent, compare to the absence of religion). However, with this claim, I never mean without religion there wouldnt be morality. I only mean it would make it more effective, in the sense that apart from being cautious about the law of the land which will serve as part of the source of social morality, there would also be some institutions (such as; religion institutions) that will always emphasis it ( morality) repeatedly to human hearing and may easily be cultivated by. Nevertheless, one may also argue, that if there was no religion initially,some other special institutions that would propagate or preach morality might also be established without religions influence.This may be true, but with the existence of religion (the special institution) morality will be more effective compared to its non-existence. This is because, with the concept of gods or God which can give punishment and which maybe verified through some effective taboos. This may create fear in human mind to do away with what society or law of the land termed bad even when there is no one available to hold them responsible. In essence, I mean religion caution people to do away from immoral acts, due to the fear it has created in their minds. But for the critical minded persons which may tend to claim that some are born in religious family especially, religious fanatic and still go against morality as it is preached. Well, this may serve as objection against the earlier claim. But to me, it would rather serve as a backing or support to earlier claim because if this could happen when there is religion, then imaging it, if there was no religion at all. However, what those that claim the absence of religion clamor most was that people has turned religion against its purpose. Though this may be true, but absence of religion is not a better option, due to the above reasons. But to the third question on whether many religions is better compare to single religion or no religion. I dont think I should say much on this, due to obvious facts or problems shown or attached to a single religion. But we can still or easily conclude these from the above: Many religions bring freedom rather than determinism. Many religions reduces totalitarianism rather than absolute or corruption of power. Many religions make availability of choices. Etc. Anyway, as I always tend to believe that argument or position without objection(s) is of 2%, therefore all criticisms (positive or negative) are welcome, insofar it is without ad hominem. But the question is, if you go against the above claims, what view do you considered better? And what do you think is the way forward? But if you accept the above claims, what do you think is the better way to put an end to the problem(s) religion has caused people or harms it has done for people (as some people claimed)? #S.A.O. Sage #sagemotive #sages meditation on the existence of religion(s).
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:16:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015