Recently i read an article(click here) which gives a beautiful insight to actual facts put up rationally without any favourism of any kind. This is particularly important with refernce to recent terror attacks in Mumbai. Though its about Muslims but fundamentalism isn't patented for a particular religion. With the evidences of Hindu terrorists seeking the line of terror laid by their so-called enemies, its has now become very important to debate the role of RELIGION in present human society.
It is important to debate the about the "character of all religions" when its evident that majority of crimes against humanity are committed using different religions as an excuse. Obvious and instantaneous logical solution is to CRUSH ALL RELIGIONS; which might not be practical.
The evidence is clearly visible if one picks up any history books and start finding an excuse to go for war in any part of world. Religion was used to bind a certain group of people who were taught that "others" must be killed for thier opposition to your religion.
But even if we suppose that all religions are crushed away ,then an important question arises :are humans prepared for the vacuum created by absence of religion?
Don't we need a mental evolution apart from physical one which made us a dominant organism on this earth.
We should prepare for human 2.0 version which will understand and maintain logical pathways to live life on this earth.
4 comments:
Sandeep, I frankly don't think it's religion per se that is at fault. The root cause of the wars has more been a misinterpretation of religion. Something as innocuous as "propagate the word of God" can be misinterpreted as "the words of this God is the only right one". And often, the fundamentalists are the ones who 'understand' religion the least!
I would agree to some extent.
But the very nature of religion makes it that way. Any form of collectivism, ends up with lots of blind (wo)men chasing the unknown. Life on earth is about exploring and daring to ask questions. No religion can afford to permit question about its irrational nature. The moment it does, it looses its charm. Human 1.0 strive for securities even at the cost of ignorance.
Interpretations of teachings can afford to go wrong because they are fundamentally "dual" in nature. They Preach peace along with making a distinction about who is right and who is "not-right"/kafir/adharmi/traitor etc etc. The very distinction seeds the differences amongst people which blow up as social/political/geographical identities and then everybody fight for their identities.
would it be better without religions with an enhanced evolved version of humans. Its just an idea. :)
Sandeep, the obvious solution you had stated of crushing all religions has been tried very unsuccessfully by the Soviets and then the Maoists. They were unsuccessful on two accounts. The first and the less important one was that people held onto their beliefs even stronger, so even after 40 years religions could not be cleansed out. But the failure on the second account was a larger one. Because, these guys became exactly what they set out to destroy, fundamentalist. Their insistence on atheism became equally irrational and equally dogmatic.
I agree with your view about Human 2.0, but don't agree with your view about getting rid of religions. Without different religions, you cannot have differences in the ways of thinking at all. And when everyone thinks the same way, who remains to question? And wouldn't the so called logic become a religion onto itself?
The only new attribute Human 2.0 needs to have, is a tolerance towards another belief, another premise. Because there is no logic without premise. And if everyone has the same premise then it becomes a religion once again.
As correctly pointed out, Soviets and Maoists tried to do that but in a wrong way...one form of collectivism cannot end another form of the same because both of them are based on same premise. Using force on humans is like suppressing the spring, the more we suppress the more we store the potential energy to explode back whenever we let it loose.
Human 2.0 must have the most important attribute as being an individualist. Toleration, rationality, righteousness etc are just the physical projections of individualism.
Post a Comment