Chelvendra Sathieaanandha
Somewhere down below in bold is a comment that I really liked on the post “Oedipal Atheists” found on the Religious Write blog. The post looked at a new study:
Oxford University researchers will carry out a £2 million ($4.3 million) study into why people believe in God. The three-year study by anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics will consider whether belief in a divine being is an inherent part of human nature.
Project director Roger Trigg, acting head of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion, says anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world. “One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.” (more…)
If I have any conclusion at all after this trip – which is not something I claim to have – perhaps it is that all these places, whilst being vastly different on the surface, to me, are incredibly similar underneath. How different can these places within the realm of humanity truly be in the search for what truly matters, whether it’s India, China, Germany, England, America, Australia and so on? What kind of emancipation exists in seeing the world, apart from getting an increasingly acute feeling that satisfaction is somewhere between the lines. There is an odd sensation in seeing the same happiness, sadness, problems, denial, uncertainty and glimpses of beauty, framed in countless diverse ways around the globe, even in states that border each other and even between and within communities that are smaller and physically closer yet.
At ground level, as I traveled around in different kinds of groups – with different friend, with family, with strangers, by myself – seeing a variety of places, I saw numerous ways in which nations and communities have been shaped by their long histories. Ideas have been emphasised differently between societies as occurrences in the past have dictated it. It is quite fascinating to experience how differently people view even simple things because of the way they were brought up and because of the place in which they have grown up.
Firstly, as mentioned, there is contrast in what I’ve seen between places, whilst there remains an intense underlying sameness. Just as the differences keep everyone divided and distracted, the sameness shows promise for peace in the distant future despite the challenges that obviously exist. Secondly but definitely not independent of the first point, there is a type unity in the pervasive dissatisfaction existing in the world today. Identity is getting obscured as people strive to claw uncertainly for an identity, or at least something, anything, to matter enough. Perhaps I’m talking only about myself but I do not think that I am. And perhaps this only exists outside the dogmatic religious frame. In any case, the first phenomenon impedes the second; the first phenomenon distracts us from the difficulty of merely addressing the second let alone overcoming it. Living in that distraction might be necessary, but beneath that distraction is one thing that can cause unity… but does that matter?
A Coherent Worldview « Minds 2 Mentes
The author of this blog, Krista posted the above link to her blog in a comment here regarding my reference to Zacharias and the four basic questions of life. On her post, this explains the gist of the four basic questions of life:
“Ravi Zacharias spoke about the requirements of a coherent worldview. He said there are 4 questions a worldview must answer: the questions of origins, meanings, morality and destiny. The question of origins deals with how life came about. The question of meanings deals with the question of why life came about. The question of morality deals with questions of what is right and wrong and how we know the difference. The question of destiny deals with the question of the ultimate destinations of life.” (more…)
In response to the comment left on my post, here, and the post on Minds 2Mentes titled, “The Exclusiveness of Christ - Part 1.” I’ll be sure to read Krista’s next few blog posts, because the discussion does interest me even though I don’t find it useful to me personally. Religion, why and how people have such strong absolute beliefs (or faith), and the impact of religion does fascinate me; however I (and I’m sure many others) find the argument regarding absolute and relative truth to be irrelevant and impossible to support. For some people the discussion might appear to be necessary, however in no way do I accept any of the religions to be perfect (I think Gandhi said it much better than I ever could, so please read that quote from here) which therefore means that, to me, none of the religions portray an absolute truth, but instead, perhaps just an essence of truth. I’m not sure of what this absolute truth is or what happens after life, but I do not have a faith in any religion to portray it accurately where I can say it is inerrant – so the argument of absolutes is useless to me. This is the line of thinking which lead me to the idea of “spherical truth.” (more…)
Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard: Pentecost, Cicadas, Atheists, and Logical Death Traps…..SUSPENSE!!!
Intense (and rather lengthy) read. People are entitled to their views, yet, so many people seem so certain about everything. How and why is this the case? People are so certain that there is a God. Others are so certain there isn’t a God. I guess, this division isn’t all that unbelievable, but it’s when people have beliefs that are oh so specific that my mind starts to shut down. Alright, so there’s a God? Let’s assume that. Now there are rules and a single path? How are people so absolutely sure of “God’s Will” and the means of reaching salvation? After reading so many blog posts, and books about this, so many people have their opinions, and so many people are so certain that they are in fact correct, and the other poor fellow reading another dusty old book is incorrect - this observation leaves me amazed and terrified.
The writer of the linked blog-post attacks atheists, but my question is, what’s so bad about only believing in this life, “carpe diem” and so on? Who’s to say that’s wrong. I wouldn’t live my life that way, but that’s me and the meaning I have found for myself at present. Furthermore, the relationship between atheism and Epicureanism is a massive generalisation. I’ve read blogs of atheists who seem to care overtly for themselves, the people they hold close; they have an urge to awakenthe “foolish,” and they care a whole lot for pleasure and materialism. Traditionally that may be thought of as bad, selfish, arrogant and inconsiderate. However, at the same time I have atheist friends who don’t have to believe in a God to do good things - they don’t really care about material items and pleasure (and a balance to maintain pleasure) as suggested by Epicurus. I’m not convinced, but Christians say, being a good person isn’t what it’s all about; and doing good things isn’t what it’s all about – It’s about dead people becoming alive? How is anyone so sure of such things? What about other religions? People try their best to understand and follow the will of “God” yet they are still condemned to Hell because they chose wrong? Clearly if someone chose wrong, it was on purpose. Understanding of these “certain” things are derived from a text that is perfect and inerrant? How in the world can anyone be certain about matters that talk about things we can’t see and close their mind to everything else? The writer can say that one only can see the effects of the wind but not the wind itself, and similarly one can see the effects of the Holy Spirit but not the holy spirit itself; am I stating the obvious when I say that the effects of wind can be recorded and studied accurately; whilst the effects of the Holy Spirit you speak of are far more personal? What suddenly gave the Holy Spirit such definite characteristics and the basic questions regarding life such certainty? What makes you right and me or some other person wrong? Is it just the fact that if you’re right it has to mean that I’m wrong? It has to be that black and white, does it?
I’m glad that so many people are so sure what life is about. And more perplexing: I’m amazed that people are so sure what eternity is about.
What’s with all my questions?
Absolutely Relative: The Paradox of the Declaration of Relative Truth « Minds 2 Mentes
Thank you for giving me the link to your blog, and the post above which was in response to this post which talked about religion for the sake of meaning, as opposed to escapedmentalpatient’s thought where religion is belief for belief’s sake.
I’ve only briefly glanced over some of the posts on your blog but I did read the post that I have linked above, about relative truth, but I’ll be sure to have a more closer read of other posts when time allows it.
Regarding relative truth, I’ve previously had some conversations about the very same idea, with a Christian friend of mine. She couldn’t understand how I could believe that more than one path can lead to God (or a higher power) and still think Christianity can be one of these paths, because, in the Bible, Jesus said that the only way to God is through him. I also read the Case For Faith, and the chapter with the Ravi Zacharias interview, where he talked about relative truth and how Christianity is the only true way, and thus there could be no other. The section of that chapter regarding Mahatma Gandhi and whether or not he’d go to Heaven was also quite interesting, but unfortunately I am not really that impressed by any arguments made by Zacharias, although I’m sure he must be an expert on these matters. Furthermore, his representation of a kind of pop-culture-Buddhism was offensive even if it was just discussing the popularity of the “Buddhist” way of life in the United States today. His views are very absolute, and that’s where my issues start. (more…)
Filed under: Love, Morality, Religion, Spirituality, TS, meaning..., screenwriting
Perhaps “progressive” is too loaded? « Sathfilms
Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post.
“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”
As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.
Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony. (more…)
This is my response to a discussion taking place on one of my posts. It was just going to be a comment, however I think I ended up going on a tangent and writing too much, so I thought I’d make it a post too.
I’ll let Sydspace discuss this with escapedmentalpatient, but as always, I’d like to add my two glorious cents.
I think in some ways you’re definitely on to something. I know a lot of people that are “very religious,” and although they deny it, have blind faith (they argue against the “blind” part) in their religion and in their particular scripture. And as you have said, they often automatically reject any possibilities outside of their very narrow frame. Some try and consider what may exist outside of their religious view, however, they look at it with jaded eyes that aren’t really considering other ideas, or input - people question without really considering that something else may indeed [also] be correct. I am generalising, and stating the obvious in some cases, but please, anyone, stand up and say something if you think differently. I can only talk with regards to my personal experience, and from my reading about fundamentalist thought. (more…)
