*Let me preface all of this by saying that I am not denying my own belief system, only posing questions, only questioning history. Please do not read unless you can think independently and pragmatically outside of your belief structure without allowing this to modify your own ideas. My wish here is not to 'convert' anyone to or dissuade anyone from any particular concept. I am only typing what's in my head. Good luck :) *
Hope — it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength and your greatest weakness.
* The Architect The Matrix Reloaded
Every religion, as far as reason will help them, makes use of it gladly - and where it fails them, they cry out: "It is a matter of faith, and above reason!" ~ John Locke
Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse. ~ Arthur Koestler
Ok, so here's a serious post for once :)
Religion would have us to believe that hope is a requirement for human life and that faith is a requirement to see God. Humanism would tell us to believe that man is, at his root, good and therefore hope is inherently existent in him. Psychology would demand of us to agree that the human psyche is fragile enough to require certain things of which one is hope - that a mind cannot survive without a reason to. Optimism begs us to know that hope is an acceptance of yesterday, a willingness to live for today, and yet a dream that tomorrow can be better. Faith is not so different, but where hope is a wish, a dream, faith is a believe that a thing is or can be.
But as mentioned by both Locke and Koestler, there is a point where faith becomes an excuse to believe a thing. How can one know that there is a God? One cannot prove it, yet many believe while others do not...enter the age old argument of the confrontation of the 'Big Bang' theory as well as the 'Creation' theory and including any and all hybridized versions of the two. How can one prove the existence of an after life? Religions spanning from Judaism to Roman and Greek mythology to Christianity to Buddhism and Taoism and more modern religions of Scientology and other like sects hold that either there is a heaven or paradise or underworld. Many hold that there is a 'crossing over'. Christians quote that crossing over Jordan is a figurative meaning for entering heaven whereas ancient Greek held the same belief, but substituted River Styx for the River Jordan. Most religions have some sort of semblance of another. Judaism, Greek and Roman mythology fed into Christianity - the latter two because of the timeline of the emergence of the religion and the former as the base of the belief system.
So in light of the slight blending that each religion appears to possess with another, should all be abandoned? The fact that one possess faith in a thing or hope in a future does not make it true...if so, every religion in the world must be accepted as valid and workable and yet each claims that it is the 'one true religion'. Each leads inexorably to a point where it must assume a dogmatic approach to any opposing region. Some flavors of Christianity slam others withing their own religion, particularly at the 'Church' of the middle ages causing a revolt and a spin off of the religion spawning into quite a few sub-regions (denominations) and yet most Christians hold a Bible that was developed on the political whims of this split off.
Unfortunately, despite its popularity - particularly among conservative Christians - the King James Version is one of the most error-prone translations available in English. The texts used by the translators are known and have been known almost since the time of the translation to have been inferior and full of scribal mistakes. source
True?
The problem again remains and the question still stands...what does one do in light of the possible errors in region or perhaps that fact that your particular flavor of region or specific coloration of the concept of God is entirely incorrect? Should all become willing to disassociate one's self entirely from a theo-centric belief structure? Should we all become agnostic or atheistic? Or can one truly be an atheist anyway? Perhaps it is its own belief system with its own concept of 'God' which then proves a disillusion of the term 'atheist' in the first place and denies its possible existence outside of a conceptual level?
or.....
Or should we continue to have faith, the kind that moves mountains and feeds thousands and commits genocide as a holy war. (Please note that Islam does not actually allow Jihad as some extremist elements have used it, but also know that the Christian faith in the Middle Ages headed one of the largest Holy Wars in history - the Crusades. So before one starts nailing Islam for region-based terrorism, one must check ones own history. I've found quotes that estimate that the Christian wars left between 150,000 to 9 million dead. Kind of makes the deaths of Islam pale in comparison, doesn't it?) Should we continue to believe in God? (Everyone does is same shape or form.) Should we continue to pray and visit our holy buildings? (Muslims pray more like the Old Testament 'church' than Christians do currently...so at least their manner of prayer can be viewed as somewhat more 'Biblical' than that of the modern Christian.)
Though all of the questions above and many more rage on spurring hatred and violence, spilling the blood of many, messages of peace that deteriorate into the destruction of buildings by planes. Claims of a fervor for God that hangs a man on a cross.
Yet we still believe. We continue to retain hope. We demand of ourselves to retain our faith.
