Introduction
On my previous writing about our relationship with God, there is this one part where I heavily criticized religion, but now, I realized my flaws. So in this writing, I will defend religion instead, and we'll see the purpose of religion, how it has been corrupted over time, and how we can fix religion. Perhaps we can start by defining religion, religion is a systematic set of beliefs, or an ideology about God, or sometimes gods and goddesses, or just a higher power. Religion is not only ideology though, it is also communities founded on that ideology, founded on the core values of a certain religion. Examples of religion are Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, the ancient Greek and Nordic religions, Baha'i religion, and so on. Buddhism, for one, is not a religion at all, contrary to popular belief, this is because Buddhism doesn't focus on the idea or concept of God, but towards the renewing and improving of the self. They acknowledge the existence of a higher spiritual plane and higher powers, but they do not focus on it. With the definition laid, let's begin, shall we?
Role of Religion
In the previous writing, I wrote about how religion prevents us from actually connecting with God, but that statement is actually wrong, so I will revise it here. I am going to write this in several arguments, that is in a listed form, just as usual.
1. Moral Guidance
Religion acts as guidance, that is moral guidance. Most religions view God as a morally superior being, or a deity that is morally perfect, and seeks morality from God. As a result, most religions will also contain moral codes about what actions appease God, or what actions anger Her. In Christianity, this is known as virtue and sin. Sins are said to be actions that is against God's will. This moral codes though, are not actually something that must be followed strictly. They are just guides on how we should live out our lives. But in the end, we have to decide ourselves what is good and what is bad, religion only helps.
Let's take a very controversial doctrine within Christianity, the doctrine about banning homosexuality. Now many people thinks that this doctrine is a must follow, or God will throw us to eternal damnation. But God is all-loving and all-merciful, so how can She even think of throwing us to hell? Even if God can throw us to hell, what serves as a proof that God hates gays? Saying that it is true just because the scriptures say so is a fallacy of relevance, as it is an argument from "Holy Scripture". And is it not possible that we might have misinterpret the scriptures?
In the end, if I, a Catholic believes that homosexuality is not a sin, or not something bad at all, am I a sinner? To many conservative Catholics, sure I am, and to most priests, yes I am. But in the end, how do you know? And who was it that created the doctrine of "homosexuality is a sin"? Is it God? No, it was humans trying to interpret the scriptures and analyze it, and the result is the doctrine of homosexuality is a sin. And if humans created that doctrine, it can be false, as humans are flawed, so we have to analyze it to prove that a certain doctrine is true. This goes for all other doctrines within all religions.
In the end, while religion guides us to find morality, religion is not the be all and end all of morality. Many parts of religion is created by humans, which can make it flawed, as a result, we have to analyze it and reform it where necessary. We can use religion to help us find morality, but not depend on it. Basically, religion is a tool to find the moral truth, but it is not the moral truth itself. Another example is to create an analogy. Say there is raw food, such as raw chicken. Do we eat the raw chicken itself? Of course not, we have to cook the chicken first, then we can eat it. Religion is like the raw chicken, we have to "cook" it first, and then we can "eat" it. Or we will instead get sick. Seeing religion as the be all and end all of morality is like mistaking raw chicken as cooked chicken. It already contains nutrients you need, but there are still germs that can make you sick or even worse, kill you.
2. Guidance to God
Religion acts as a guidance in many sectors, and one of the core sectors being God, as religion is centered upon God. In many religions, there are doctrines that tell us how to make our faith or our relationship with God stronger, such as how to pray, the moral codes, and so on and so forth. Yet again, these doctrines are not rules that we have to follow very strictly to connect to God, they are just signs, guides, tools. We can take those guides as inspiration on how to conduct or relationship with God, but in the end, our faith is our matter alone.
Perhaps we can take the example of some doctrines. In Christianity, it is said that God is in the form of a trinity headed by a male figure, and we must follow a structure in prayer, we must go to church every Sunday, we must receive the sacraments and so on and so forth. Of course, many Christians say those things are necessary for us to actually have a good relationship with God. But do we? Again, these doctrines are just guides, they serve to help us find our way of connecting with God, but they only help us, we will not find God within them.
In the end, it is our choice on how to conduct our relationship with God, as our relationship with Her is something very personal, that nothing can interfere with. If we feel that going to church helps us, that's fine. If we feel going to church doesn't help, then we shouldn't go to church, it will not benefit us at all. If meditating helps us, then we should meditate, but yet again, we are free to approach God anyway we want. Of course there are borders on how we should relate to God, religion helps define those borders. Such as, God doesn't like killing people obviously, so if someone say they were instructed by God to kill, then it is nonsensical and we should ignore them.
Religion is like a sign, pointing towards God's home. Or perhaps a collection of signs, pathways, compasses, GPS software and other navigational equipment that help us go to God's house. All of this equipment are good, but they are not perfect, they can help us get to God, but sometimes, they just fail. As a result, we mustn't depend on those guides to get to God, we can get help from it, use it to help us, but the decision of where to go is our choice, not because the guide tells us so.
We will not find God within Mosques, Churches, Pagodas, Temples, or Viharas. Nor will we find Her in the oceans, mountains, or the bustling cities. God is not inside the Bibles, the Qurans, the Tripitakas or any other Holy Scripture. But we will find God, when we look into ourselves, when we look at the world, when we let go of our ego, only then we will find God.
3. Unifying Force
This is a minor role of religion, but it is quite important. Religion helps unite people, people of diverse cultures and ethnicities that otherwise would stay separated. This is because religion creates a new common similarity among these people. That is the belief in God in a certain way. Yes religion is influenced by the culture of the original location of it, but then, it is not the focus, but the values within a religion that becomes the focus. That is ideals, which can be practiced universally.
Let's look at Christianity, Christianity is right now the largest religion in the world by member population. And their population is very diverse, there are Asians, Europeans, Africans, and so much more people that would otherwise stay divided. A good example is in Europe and the Crusades. Europe used to be very divided because of political tensions and cultural differences. But when Christianity came, they became united under the Church, and during the crusades, they united under the banner of Christianity against the Muslim forces.
The same can be seen in Islam, the Arab world used to be quite divided. But Islam managed to unite it and also unite many other people of the world under the banner of Islam. They all have solidarity with each other, and help out each other, in the name of Islam. Of course, every other religion does this as well, just sometimes it is not that visible.
Purpose of Religion
There is one single purpose of religion, that is to guide the People. Religion should guide people so they can find God and the moral truth independent of that particular religion. This means that religion should make people to be mature and independent, and can think for themselves, which means one thing, religion should help people to think critically. Religion should be progressive, that is they renew themselves constantly, and they base their teachings on logic and not just tradition. Religion should not make people depend on that religion for God and the moral truth.
Religion is like a well for everyone to wash their body. The proper way to use it is to take some water from the well and then wash our body with it, notice that the water, after washing away our dirt, becomes dirty as well and is thrown away. We should not go into the well and submerge ourselves in the well as it will make the water in the well dirty. What this means is we can make ideas from the original teachings of that religion, but we should not attach it to the religion. We can make our ideas a part of that religion, but it is not attached, it means it can still be renewed without any problems.
A good example is the current situation of Christianity. The Catholic Church has most of its doctrines based upon Paul's teachings. Paul was just trying to interpret the teachings of Jesus from his perspective. That is not wrong, but it's a problem when we make Paul's teachings authoritative and we latch on to it. We have to acknowledge that Paul is also a human, and what he said may contradict what Jesus said, as a result, his teachings must be critically analyzed.
Christianity can provide the Gospels, Pauline teachings and other scriptures as guides for us to find God and the moral truth. But none of it is authoritative, even if the Gospel is about what God said Themselves, it is still subject to analysis. But, can a teaching be authoritative at one point? Yes, if it stands up to logical scrutiny, and it is proven by logic, then there are teachings within that religion that is authoritative, but again, we have to analyze how it is supported by logic. We must not swallow it whole, but chew it first. And everyone else has to understand why is it logical in the first place, and not just swallow it, even if others had chewed it. They have to chew for themselves, not ask someone else to chew it for them.
The Present Flaws of Religion
Religion today though, has strayed quite far from its original purpose of guiding people. It has now become an instrument of divide and propaganda, those who feel that their life is improved by religion, is not because of the religion itself. But it's because they can see the meaning behind it all, and not just the rituals and traditions. There are multiple flaws within religion right now, and I shall explain what I know.
1. Static
If we see the situation of most religions right now, we can see that they are somewhat static right now. Even the Catholic Church, even if it has tried to renew itself, they still fail to keep up with the times, especially in terms of the LGBT community. Or other religions that keep holding on to tradition without critically analyzing the traditions itself. The tradition of sacrament has existed for very long, but what is their true purpose? The baptist is only symbolic in nature, and the Body of Christ is a metaphor in itself. But these traditions are still kept in religion. When a religion is static, it fails to serve the purpose of guiding people towards God and the moral truth.
As time progresses, knowledge advances as well, we know more about the world, and religion should keep up with it as well. That is doctrines that doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny should be replaced. If the very scriptures are flawed in logic, then perhaps major reforms should be conducted. If further scientific discoveries decreases the likelihood that God exists, then religion should be ready with rebuttals that is actually logical, and not just based on Scriptures. If it is found out that God doesn't exist, then religion must be ready to dissolve itself, perhaps it can stay as a philosophy of morality, but that's all.
Perhaps an illustration can explain this better. There are 2 religions, religion I and religion C. The religion I is static, it bases all of its arguments on their scriptures, without trying to see if there can be room for reinterpretation. They stick with the same interpretations without accepting any other opinions. When someone asks them for proof, all they say is, "It's in the Holy Scriptures, so it must be true." But in religion C, they still base their beliefs on the Scriptures, but they are open to different interpretations, they open their minds, they try to connect the ideas within their Holy Books with Scientific Laws. They embrace science, as a form of respect to their God. They kept reforming, and they let the members of the religion give out opinions to reform it. They acknowledge their faults in the past, but they also keep moving forward, fitting within the modern world. In the end, the static religion fails to keep up, and they resort to propaganda and various indoctrinative methods, but in the end, their religion is sweeped away under the history books. Religion C thrived, they kept on improving until slowly by slowly, they got to the truth together with the People.
2. Too Authoritative
I explained how the teachings in religion should only serve as a guide, right? But unfortunately, many religions today enforce us to believe that their image of God is the most correct image. Of course, we know that we don't have to follow them, the worst they can do is call us blasphemers or kick us out of their religion. But not all of us are as enlightened as that, and so we must help enlighten them. Many religions today will usually say that if we want to have a good relationship with God, we have to go to the house of worship, we have to repeat certain incantations in our hearts and so on and so forth. But of course, that should not be the case.
It is fine for a religion to have prayers and all, but those prayers serve only as guides. The image of God is fine, but it is only a guide. As in the end, one's relationship with their God is very personal, and must not be interfered. Let's take the example of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, they say we have to go to church every Sunday. we have to sing very specific songs and so on. But then, they also say that we have to keep praising God, and we have to treat ourselves as if we are absolutely inferior to God, that we are the tools of God, we are the servants of God, and so on. Religion should not be telling their followers how to find God, but religion must teach followers on how to find God, there is a difference.
Religion should tell the followers that they can find God in any way they like, but of course also provide the moral borders. These moral borders must only be the objective truth, such as what God is, and how we should view God. And also, religion needs to let followers give input as well, and also analyze their own teachings, make sure it's open to new interpretation and criticism. Make it inclusive, that all followers have equal power to give new interpretations. As in the end, it's the followers that needs guidance, so perhaps we should let them seek guidance for themselves as well.
How to Fix Religion
We have discussed the role of religion, and also the flaws of it today, but of course, if we can point out the flaws, then we have to know how to repair it as well. We want to fix something, we have to know which part is broken. We know a part is broken, we have to try to fix it, and not just leave it broken, the same goes for religion. As a result, I will explain some ways we can fix religion.
1. More Freedom
More freedom? What does it mean? Of course, I am referring to the members, that is more freedom to the members to do what they want. As stated previously, the purpose of religion is to guide them to the truth and God, not force them to accept that particular religion as the truth and message of God. So, religion should give more freedom to the followers of that religion to do what they want. Yes, moral codes and guidelines should be present, but followers must not be forced to adhere to them, religion will act as a consultant. So if someone feels like they don't want to be a homophobic bastard, the Church shouldn't excommunicate him or whatever. Or if they are actually homosexual, then the Church should still give him his well deserved rights.
But why is more freedom important? The answer can be found on the purpose of religion, I explained how religion serves to guide us towards the truth and God, and also to empower us so we can reach it by ourselves. That means independence, but let's analyze it further. Yes, with more freedom, there is a higher chance of misuse right? That is an obstacle, stress, so, must we remove the stress, or make the followers adapt? Some feel like it's easier and better to remove the stress, but I disagree. If you remove the stress, the followers can't adapt to anything new, and they will stop evolving in that part. But, how do we prevent misuse of freedom then? By guidance, that is logical guidance, and critical thinking, this is where religion comes in. The freedom still exists, but religion guides us on what to do. There is no penalty for using that freedom, even if it is wrong, but guidance.
Perhaps I should make an illustration here. In a certain religion, say religion X, the followers follow a strict religious code and moral rules. They are not allowed to divert from it, even if it doesn't cause harm, and if they divert, they are given a severe penalty, perhaps financial or physical penalty. Of course this is illegal in a secular state, so let's say it's in a theocratic state. As time passes, the followers of the religion became fearful of the punishments, added with the threat of eternal damnation, they follow the codes very strictly. This is all good until one day, the theocratic state was destroyed in a war, and the followers were unchained from the strict punishments, as well as being told that eternal damnation is just a concept used by the elites to fool people. Of course, some of the moral codes within X is actually good, such as don't kill and the likes. But the followers of X, thinking there is no one to punish them, they think it's okay to violate the rules. Eventually, they devolve into savages, as they don't know to use their freedoms properly.
In another religion, say religion Y, there are many and various religious codes and moral rules, but the followers are not forced to adhere to it strictly. They can choose their own moral path, and there will be no penalty. Of course, it is still recommended to follow those rules, but the religion doesn't force you to follow it, they will guide you and try to convince you that you should follow them, but in the end, it's still your choice. That is, you are given lots of freedom to do what you want. Doesn't this mean there are lots of misuse of freedom? No, because the religion guides the followers to use those freedoms wisely. Eventually, as time passed, the followers have adapted to their freedom, and they can do the right thing, even if by the law of the religion, they are allowed to divert with no penalties at all, they still do the right thing, as they are aware of which is right and which is wrong. One day, the religion suddenly dissolved, but the followers? They kept to their morals and beliefs, they didn't divert, and they stayed consistent.
Do you see the difference there? In religion X, the followers need a threat of punishment so they can obey. When that threat is eliminated, they feel that they can do anything they want. While in religion Y, they can choose the right choice, with or without the threat of punishment. Or in other words, the followers of Y have adapted to their freedoms, and they can use those freedoms without destroying themselves. This has something to do with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, but that's a topic for another day. I hope this example makes it clear.
2. More Democratic
This is similar to the first solution, but this is more about letting members have say on their religion more. Making a religion more democratic means giving the followers more power over their own religion over time, just as the State gives more power to the People as time goes on. As stated before, one of the flaws of religion is that it is static thus it can't keep up with the times. So, the solution is to make it not static, then how does democracy improve that? You see, in a democracy, the basic pillar is letting people express their own different opinions and then integrating all of those opinions into a single new and innovative idea which everyone then agrees upon. By that definition, if we implement more democracy within religion, it should then improve religion over time, though there is a catch, let me explain.
When a religion becomes more democratic, it will be more open to criticisms and critical analysis. As followers can give input to doctrines that they feel is nonsensical, or perhaps they feel even contradicts each other. With constant discussion about certain doctrines, of course that is discussions based upon logic, the religion will get better slowly and slowly. But not just the doctrines, the very scriptures that those doctrines are based upon should be criticized and discussed until it is clear that it is morally true. But what about multiple interpretations? Well of course that will addressed in discussions. Until all members of said religion agrees upon a single interpretation, but that interpretation can still change if members find new flaws within that interpretation. So it may seem that the religion has inconsistent principles, but it is because it keeps changing and progressing. In the end, the teachings are the guidelines, but it is still subject to discussion. And I mentioned the "catch" in the first part of this solution, what is it?
That is it is quite possible for all members to be indoctrinated and all discussion goes only one direction. That is why, just like democracy in the State, the followers should be guided first. This will be the job of the clerics to help guide the followers to take more control in their religion and think critically to analyze the religion even more effectively. And if even the clerics are brainwashed? Then surely there must be one or two sane people, then they can climb up the ranks and start guiding everyone to the right path. Or if there isn't, someone from outside can analyze that religion, and start guiding followers of that religion to reform. Critical thinking and an open mind is critical to all applications of democracy, or it will fail horribly, and go back to extremism. Another example should help explain this.
There was a religion called religion A, religion A is similar to religions of today, static, and followers are not given much power in changing the teachings or doctrines. They can serve in it, participate in charity work, and so on, but the doctrines are shut by the clerics. While the clerics have made an effort in improving the doctrines, they are still based upon old interpretations of their scriptures, and the last renewal was more than 50 years ago. The religion was unable to change fast enough and adapt to the times. Eventually, the followers had enough, and a violent conflict happened within that religion, and it split into two, the original A, and A+. A+ was no different than A, while the doctrines are new from the A doctrines, it never changed again, and just like A, the doctrines are shut by the clerics, the situation is still the same, and they never develop or renew themselves, other than conflicts and rare councils.
Meanwhile, there is religion B, which is quite similar to religion A, but the difference is, the clerics allow and in fact encourage their followers to help discuss with them and analyze doctrines and also the scriptures. They organize themselves in a staged direct democratic structure (See my writing "The Political Ideology II" for more information) and constantly discuss to improve themselves. They keep revising interpretations so that it is much more logical, supports human rights, and is scientific over all. As time goes, the religion keeps developing, new ideas are created, new teachings are created, verses are reinterpreted, all for the better. The clerics guide the followers as they grow more independent, and more control is given to them as time goes on. In the end, they never experienced any huge conflicts, and most disagreements are decided by discussion. They prospered and thrived in the world, adapting to changes and so on. I hope that example is clear enough.
Closing
Religion, is made with good intentions and purposes, but it is true that over time, it may have went the wrong way. This doesn't mean religion has to be eliminated completely, but it needs to be reformed, and fixed. Religion serves to guide us towards the moral truth and God, but in the end, it is our choice. Religion has no power to force us to abide by their image of God, in fact, we should have the power to change religion so it can suit us. Religion is now static and authoritative, but we can fix that, by making it more democratic and have more freedom. That is all for now, I hope you enjoyed.
