The Conflict of Religion

The Conflict of Religion

In our last session we discussed the views of four individuals who oppose religion: Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and, Bertrand Russell. Nietzsche explains, “If God exists then Nietzsche can not, but Nietzsche is, therefore, God is not”. He also held that if Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is true then the idea of an existing God cannot be true. Karl Mark expressed, “religions are addicting, and therefore, we use them as power.” He also believed that “we follow religions to alleviate problems, however, because religion is nothing more than an addiction it can not fully solve the problems.” Marx also held that “because religion is an addiction it is dangerous”. Sigmund Freud expressed the idea that, “God is a man made creation”. He believed that, “man created God to witness their daily activities”. In addition, he said, “The creation of God was important to the survival of mankind.” Bertrand Russell held the view that, “the problem with religion is that it gives one a sense of empowerment that we don’t need. Therefore, religion is dangerous”.

In order for me to form an opinion of my own, I had to examine both sides of each claim. Take for example Nietzsche’s idea “because He exists God can not”. What if one were to turn this thought into “because I am, God is” or better yet because god is, therefore, I am. One can also give is and am meaning by saying something like, “God is perfect, therefore, I cannot be perfect.” All these sayings can be true but also false logically; therefore, this claim cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. The claims of Marx, and, Russell are similar, however, these ideas are based on the idea that religion is man made. Marx believed that religion is an addiction that we use as power. Russell believed the idea of religion gives us too much power. His idea is based on the question, “do we do God’s work”? He does not believe that we do God’s work, but his claim suggests that his answer to that question would be that we do. If Russell would have answered the question by saying no, then he would have come up with a conclusion like, “because we don’t do gods work religion is not dangerous”. But to say we don’t do gods work that religion is dangerous does not make sense to dispute. Because if we don’t do gods work then why would religion be dangerous? Therefore, the only way that one can conclude that religion is dangerous is if you believe that one does gods work. Freud has the idea that we use God as a parent. That is too say that everything that we do means nothing if it is not witnessed. In a certain manner that is true. For example, if one was to write a book but no one has read it, such a book is just a collection of words. Similarly, if God has created us, and no one acknowledges it, then does that mean that Gods creation did not exist or was useless? To assume that a book was written to be read but was not is therefore a useless book, is to exclude the possibility of the writer writing the book to bring out desires, anger, pressures, pain, or any other emotional feeling. Therefore, if the writer achieved those goals by writing the unread book then it was useful. Comparatively, to say that an action that is not noticed is useless can be proven false in a spiritual sense and can only be true when it comes to acquiring material goods or receiving compliments from material beings. The same thing holds true with Nietzsche’s idea that “if evolution is true then God is not. It is very possible that evolution is the product of a divine plan. If God is perfect then why wouldn’t he / she or “it” plan for evolution?

Living For a Higher Purpose

The question that I am trying to answer is whether or not it makes sense to live for a fulfillment beyond this world? I think that it is more important to live for the purpose of preserving our Gods creation than it is to live for the purpose of achieving an everlasting life in heaven. I think that if we do something just because we think God wants us to; we are living a selfish life. Does God want us to live for the purpose of his creation or for the purpose of our interest to be in heaven? I think that we should live to promote the processes which God provided us to enhance growth of our humanity. What are some of these tools that God has provided us?
Firstly, God has provided us with a body. You may be familiar with the saying “my body is my temple, and my temple is my guide.” One may look at this quote as individualistic. I view it as the “world” being my temple and my temple is my guide. I feel that it is my duty to take care of my temple and I will be taken care of in return. The body is mystical on its own. It is made of cells that only last seven years. Every seven years new cells are generated. How is it that we obtain all of our genetic information if the cells are the carriers of this material? Is it mitosis and meiosis? I don’t doubt that they are involved that would be a contradiction because they are the reproduction processes of cells. However, it seems that the death of a cell would have to occur if we are to maintain a living status. The body and all it wonders is made up an average of 55% to 65% water depending on your age and your fat content. Children seem to have a larger percentage of water. Is death the result of a process of slowing loosing water? There are researches that have been done that suggest that dehydration occurs from the lack of water this causes your body to become highly acidic. The human body should always remain neutral (between basic and acidic) about 7 on the ph scale. If the water level falls, the power of hydrogen will degrees to 1-3 and could cause problems like, high blood pressure. There is also evidence that cancer can develop in this environment. I think, like Lao stated in the Tao Te Ching, there seems to be something about water that is amazing. And I think that it is of our interest to protect this wonderful resource.
Secondly, God has provided us with a consciousness. With this consciousness we are able to have emotions, feel sensations, see, hear, and make rational decisions. We can also make non rational decisions. These decisions are usually influenced by sources that are unknown to us as we make them. They usually are the result of something that we have heard or something that we have seen. They are past memories that influence most of our actions whether we know it or not. When we make these decisions they can result in perfection or they can end up being a tragedy. However, when we examine the consequences and their opposites we tend to have a better chance of making the right decisions. What does this mean? If I had made any sense at all, this means that when we make our decisions on the basis that we want to be saved we are living outside of our consciousness. If conciseness is truly a gift from God, then why not live inside it?
Thirdly, God gave us spirituality. Spirituality seems to be something more than just mere consciousness. If I take the idea of the world and me, I can separate the two by saying I have a separate I.D (energy balance) than the other individuals in it. I have choices and if I have a choice than I can speak my own mind and if that is the case than the world revolves around something more than just my consciousness. There seems to be a spiritual since that is feeding all of us. Everything from what we see, what we hear to what we smell, and taste seem to be our conciseness but how these things make us feel is our spirituality. Every spirit seems to be the same however, when it works with the consciousness it transforms because every individual has a different energy balance. We are not all alike in our experiences. We are not all alike in our body and physical structure or in our genetic makeup. However, we seem to hold the same general sense of our surrounding. This seems to be the result of our spirit. In addition, it seems to be the ultimate gift we have received from God and it seems to be the driver of all things.

The phisical and mental power of buddhism

According to Smith, Buddhism was created by a man by the name of Siddhartha, Gautama. Siddhartha was born 563 B.C. in Kapilavastu, Nepal into the Gautama family of the Shakaya clan. The Shakayas were members of the priestly-warrior caste. Siddhartha’s father was the head of this casts so he was a prince. He received the best education his father’s wealth could provide. He married a woman named Yashodha and they lived in his father’s kingdom. He was protected from life’s hardships by his father. According to Smith, Siddhartha’s father would give orders to place dancing girls at his desposal, and made sure that there were no unpleasant things going on in his quarters. But on more than one occasion; the orders were neglected. One of these, Siddartha came across a man suffering from the frailties of age. On another, he saw a sick man suffering from disease, and another, he saw a corpse; a dead man which shocked him greatly. This was the Siddhartha’s turning point. He gave up his claim to the succession of his father’s throne and left the palace to begin his search for the truth. At age twenty-nine he mounted his great white steed. Leaving his wife and child behind and set off for the forest. There he studied Yogic meditation with two Brahman hermits and achieved high cognitive states. At the age of thirty-nine, Siddhartha reached enlightenment and became an “enlightened one” a Buddha (a man who woke up). For the next forty-five years he taught as the Buddha (sage of the shakaya). The Buddha died at the age of eighty-nine after eating a poisoned mushroom.
I probably don’t understand the full potentials that stem from the practices of Buddhism. One thing that sparked my curiosity is the quote “Mara challenged Gautama’s right to do what he was doing but he touched the earth with his right fingertip and the earth thundered.” Is it possible to reach such a cognitive state that would allow one to make the nature of physical being weaker than the mental state? Can we create physical powers from cognitive energies? Can we control our material surrounding or induce pleasure out of pain? Or is this statement a play on words, expressing the determination to fulfill Siddhartha’s desire for higher understanding. It is an interesting thought to ponder. Here are some quotes taken from Smiths book. “Buddha preached a religion devoid of authority.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of ritual.” “Buddha preached a religion that skirted speculation.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of tradition.” “Buddha preached a religion of intense self-effort.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of the supernatural.” This religion taught the Eightfold path, which consist of eight steps. Learning the right knowledge, having the right aspiration, the right speech, practicing the right behavior, living the right livelihood, performing with the right effort, being in the right mind, having the right absorption. Although, I don’t understand the complete intentions of this practice, it seems to me to be one that would create individual happiness with in. In addition to the kindness, truthfulness, and the honesty of the people whom practice this religion, it also provides a sense of knowledge about nature. I appreciate the fact that Buddhism values all creatures as living beings by not allowing them to be the source of there nourishment. There is some evidence to support the possibility that humans are not truly carnivorous, for example, our teeth are not shaped to cut through the flesh of meat. We do have two canine shaped teeth that are said to be used to crack nuts. If this is true then, it is likely that our digestive system is not fit for the digestion of meat. This could be the cause of many of our digestion problems as well as, high blood pressure at older ages. Is this the knowledge of the Siddhartha? Self preservation; and fulfillment seemed to be the focus.

Can Western Families Be Influenced by Religious Doctrines?

Can Western Families Be Influenced By Religious Doctrines? A philosophical approach to understanding the motivation of free will Family life in America could be strengthened by attention and adherence to the doctrines and practices of Hinduism, and Islam. Western cultures tend to have an individualistic orientation and other cultures, a collectivist orientation. The differences between these two cultures seem to influence people’s attitudes. Eastern doctrine seems to promote obedience and western doctrine seems to endorse individualism and freedom. In my paper I will explore what Hinduism could contribute to families in the west. In addition, I will look at the difference between Islam and Christianity and pinpoint specific things that I think cause problems in today’s social settings in the west. I will also examine the possible disadvantages of religion as it relates to human existence. However, I would like to start with a few thoughts about how religion can effect personal development. Does the phrase “we must get to know ourselves before we can know anyone else” have any legitimacy? If so you may also agree that to truly know oneself is to be able to control all reactions caused by ones emotions. Some types of emotions one could feel are depression, sorrow, fear, frustration, happiness, and jealousy. It seems that out of these emotions fear is the cause of jealousy, jealousy is the driver of depression and sorrow and frustration are the effects. In order to get out of a mind state in which depression is the dominating factor one may have to except the circumstances by which they are depressed about. By comparing the difference between what they do and what they don’t have one may be able to achieve this goal. These feelings of dejection can cause families to become unstable or dysfunctional. However, what if we could be conditioned overcome the fears that could create such emotions? It seems that throughout western history religion and family have been two institutions linked together through relationships of dependency and control. Religious institutions depend on families to pass on the rituals and beliefs of its particular faith tradition. And in turn religions provided moral guidelines that shape those families practices, and the organization of their life. The difference between this lifestyle and the others seems to be the cause for conflict. If one were to make a notion that a family that follows a faith tradition is a “good family”, they must also say a family that doesn’t support a tradition is a “bad family” or simply is not a good family. Looking at these two families as it relates to Christianity, we can say that a family that has a conviction towards this faith might be less inclined to fear natural occurrences. Therefore, we may see a lower rate of depression within families of faith than in families without. With this, what happens to our communities? As I stated in my second paragraph depression can alter the relationship that one has with their family, therefore, having a faith can be a benefit for their individual social settings. However, with this type of lifestyle one may not see that problems like pollution, litter, and homelessness are of their responsibility. In addition, they may not be accepted among other social groups and groups of different faith. It may be true that introducing faith into family settings could enhance the relationship between the members; however, it could also rattle the relationship of humanity. What can be introduced into the west to balance this equation? I think that by adopting the 3rd pillar of Islam which is an obligation of Muslims to pay a small percentage of their wealth towards “Zakat”, which is used for the benefit of the needy and the poor is one step forward. This act exemplifies a means of social justice, order and respect for Gods creation. However, in order to maintain this principle we must add a regulation. It seems that nothing is more controlling than fear and all emotions are driven by fear. Hinduisms may be the place to turn to. The principal of Karma may be a stepping stone that the west could use to complete the equation. We can think of it as immediate karma, for example, “what goes around comes around” (in this life) or we may also think of it like the Hindus did (your current life determines the path of you next life). Karma is based on the ideas of cause and effect. Therefore, anything one does in this life will affect your future or ones next life. Take for example the idea of homelessness. Are people homeless because they are paying a debt to karma? If so why should we help them? This seems to be the question posed about karma. Although it is hard to answer I would like to take as shot at it by saying this, in order for karma to be relevant, negative and positives notions of it must exist. With the idea of someone doing something negative (evil) you obtain bad karma. By looking at this I examine how karma could work. Karma is a positive energy field that attracts negative energy. It prevents positive energies from entering and negative energies from exiting. If this is true then goal is to make the energy field neutral, but how does one do that? It seems that the only way to do is by good deeds. If we do things out of heart with care and compassion we produce positive energy with in us. That energy is able push the negative energy out of us. In the process the surrounding negative energy builds up and as soon at it reaches an equilibrium point with the positive it the field becomes neutral. Therefore, by helping the homeless we are doing good deeds and maintaining a neutral energy field. All religions have something to contribute to the fundamental values of human life. However, for the most part, they are convictions that tend to separate the ideas of different social groups; therefore, one may never be able to agree on beliefs and issues of another social group which could cause conflicts. However, if there was only one thing to believe in it seems that there would more skeptics than believers. It seems to me that the plan of God is to unite the creation with its creator. The only way to complete task seems to be to bring the creation together as one. How is this possible? To achieve this one needs to have a common notion “there is a God”, it seems that everything that leads up to “there is a God” is the hook used to make the catch. If one could use many different types of hooks to catch a fish, then is it possible that one could use many types of stairwells to get to God as well?

A Philosophical Approach to Understanding Free Will

Do We Have Free Will (A Philosophical Approach)

It seems to me that when one speaks of free will one imagines it to be the right to do what ever, when ever they want. Free will is an idea that we are free and our actions are not bound by laws, rules and regulations or any predetermined destiny. What does this mean? If one is truly free than they have the right to kill, I don’t agree with any argument that suggests that because a person does not have a right to kill or harm other, therefore, they are not free because, the person whom they would kill or harm would have the freedom to live or not be harmed. So what is freedom and does it exist? One could say that freedom is an idea that was brought about to maintain order in a hostile society. In other words, freedom is not a right for one to enact at all, but an idea given to society that would protect them from the actions of others. Or one could say that freedom is a right, in other words, the right to be free gives one the ability to act the way they feel fit. What about the idea that there is a predetermined destiny, that is to say, that there is a “God” who has set a path for everyone. Would one be free?
I spoke to Jolan who is a co-worker of mine and is a Christian. I asked her if she believes that God knows everything that she has done and is going to do in her life. At first, she explained that she thinks God does, she stated “God knows everything.” At this point, I ask her is there anyway that God would not know, she said “no.” I explained if god knows everything that you are going to do that means that he has set a path for you correct, she said “yes.” I said that means that you are bound by his path and there is nothing that you can do in order to change it correct, she hesitated a while and then said “yes.” Then you have no freedom, no say in your life, she didn’t like this idea very much so she didn’t agree instead she explained “yes she thinks that God does know everything, however, she doesn’t.” In other words, she believes that because God has not told her what actions she is going to take in her life she steel feels that she has the freedom to anticipate them and the freedom to execute them. However, what if the motivation to do something comes from the thought of desires, are you free?
Fraud wrote that “man is free only to the extent that his behavior is not unconsciously motivated at all.” In other words, all actions are caused by reasons that you lack awareness of; therefore one doesn’t choose to make those actions consciously.