I am not arguing that religion establishes absolute moral and ethical groundworks. In some cases it does in some cases it doesn't. It certainly lays the foundation and gives meaning and purpose to moral and ethical standards that would otherwise be contradictory to human nature and logic. But whether it is successful in establishing the absolute groundworks is certainly up for debate as evident by many who either don’t believe in religion or misinterpret it or misuse it.
Think of religion and idea of god as a parent who tries to teach his/her child the difference between “wrong” and “right” behavior. To the extent that the child’s intellect and understanding allows the parent may be able to explain why certain behaviors are “right” or “wrong”. There however, comes a point where logic and reasoning becomes irrelevant either because of the limitations of the child’s intellect or because the teaching has nothing to do with logic but rather more to do with experience, feeling and chance. To this end the parent may use threat of force, abandonment, dislike, or hate to convince the child to follow certain behavior or alternatively may use rewards to convince the child.
For example, a parent may be able to reason with the child that if he doesn’t share his toys with other children they will not share their toys with him either and then he will have less toys than those who share and thus there is a logical incentive for the concept of sharing. However, a parent may not have any logical explanation that would be easily understandable to give to a 3 year-old who is jealous and feels threatened by his new baby sister why he should be nice to her. At this point the the parent will try to convince the 3 year-old by threatening him that daddy or mommy will be angry if he is mean to the sister or alternatively may say daddy and mommy like it when he is nice to the sister. While the baby boy’s natural and survival instincts may dictate to him that he must eliminate the baby sister who seems to be jeopardizing his resources and thus his survival instead in order to gain the parent’s affection or avoid their wrath the baby boy will try being nice to his defenseless younger sister instead.
Now, in above examples the parents may or may not be absolutely successful in installing all their moral values in all their children or modifying their behaviors completely as they wish. But what they are doing is laying the foundations and giving purpose to certain behaviors that would otherwise be contradictory to the child’s natural and survival instincts.
Religions have many facets and it would be very simplistic to look at them purely like the above example but as far as the discussion of ethics and morality in general population is concerned religions much the same way as above examples try to lay the ground work for ethics and morality and to give some purpose and meaning to certain moral values that would otherwise seem completely against our natural and survival instincts.
I’m afraid we can not agree on a lot of what you said in above quote.
When you say in case of Khomeini evil was done I’m not sure what you mean by that. I certainly agree that “et. al.” i.e. many of those in the IR government have and continue to commit a lot “evil”, unethical, immoral and in fact un-Islamic acts. But in case of Khomeini himself you have to give me specific examples for me to make that judgement. But then again that is a topic for another discussion and I don’t want this general topic of religion to be steered in to yet another boring, old and repetitive political discussion that has been already discussed ad nauseam for the past 30 years.
Now to satisfy some of your curiosity I will tell you that I personally find many of Khomeini’s apparent understanding and interpretations of Islam different and contradictory to my own understanding and interpretations. But I will not go so far as calling him “evil” because for all I know I may be wrong or even if my understanding is the correct one Khomeini may have simply been wrong but with good intentions in which case the correct judgment would be to call him misguided and not necessarily evil. Other possibility is that in the grand scheme of things we may all be correct or all be wrong in which case again labeling him as evil will be going too far.
But I do agree with you that there is no grounds for abolishing religions altogether merely because some people may have or continue to misuse it for the wrong or "evil" purposes. This would be like abolishing the field of physics because some people may use it to build weapons to kill innocent people.
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to Karma as a general term or in its original and true meaning. But thanks for the clarification.
Think of religion and idea of god as a parent who tries to teach his/her child the difference between “wrong” and “right” behavior. To the extent that the child’s intellect and understanding allows the parent may be able to explain why certain behaviors are “right” or “wrong”. There however, comes a point where logic and reasoning becomes irrelevant either because of the limitations of the child’s intellect or because the teaching has nothing to do with logic but rather more to do with experience, feeling and chance. To this end the parent may use threat of force, abandonment, dislike, or hate to convince the child to follow certain behavior or alternatively may use rewards to convince the child.
For example, a parent may be able to reason with the child that if he doesn’t share his toys with other children they will not share their toys with him either and then he will have less toys than those who share and thus there is a logical incentive for the concept of sharing. However, a parent may not have any logical explanation that would be easily understandable to give to a 3 year-old who is jealous and feels threatened by his new baby sister why he should be nice to her. At this point the the parent will try to convince the 3 year-old by threatening him that daddy or mommy will be angry if he is mean to the sister or alternatively may say daddy and mommy like it when he is nice to the sister. While the baby boy’s natural and survival instincts may dictate to him that he must eliminate the baby sister who seems to be jeopardizing his resources and thus his survival instead in order to gain the parent’s affection or avoid their wrath the baby boy will try being nice to his defenseless younger sister instead.
Now, in above examples the parents may or may not be absolutely successful in installing all their moral values in all their children or modifying their behaviors completely as they wish. But what they are doing is laying the foundations and giving purpose to certain behaviors that would otherwise be contradictory to the child’s natural and survival instincts.
Religions have many facets and it would be very simplistic to look at them purely like the above example but as far as the discussion of ethics and morality in general population is concerned religions much the same way as above examples try to lay the ground work for ethics and morality and to give some purpose and meaning to certain moral values that would otherwise seem completely against our natural and survival instincts.
The compromise here would be to say that in the cases of Khomeini et. al. evil was done and the masses have been and continue to be controlled and that we don't have to continue down that road, nor do we have to abolish religion altogether just because some people used it for evil purposes. Can we agree on that, even if you don't want to articulate your position in those exact words (I do understand you may be living or working somewhere that may not view that so kindly :insane
?
?
When you say in case of Khomeini evil was done I’m not sure what you mean by that. I certainly agree that “et. al.” i.e. many of those in the IR government have and continue to commit a lot “evil”, unethical, immoral and in fact un-Islamic acts. But in case of Khomeini himself you have to give me specific examples for me to make that judgement. But then again that is a topic for another discussion and I don’t want this general topic of religion to be steered in to yet another boring, old and repetitive political discussion that has been already discussed ad nauseam for the past 30 years.
Now to satisfy some of your curiosity I will tell you that I personally find many of Khomeini’s apparent understanding and interpretations of Islam different and contradictory to my own understanding and interpretations. But I will not go so far as calling him “evil” because for all I know I may be wrong or even if my understanding is the correct one Khomeini may have simply been wrong but with good intentions in which case the correct judgment would be to call him misguided and not necessarily evil. Other possibility is that in the grand scheme of things we may all be correct or all be wrong in which case again labeling him as evil will be going too far.
But I do agree with you that there is no grounds for abolishing religions altogether merely because some people may have or continue to misuse it for the wrong or "evil" purposes. This would be like abolishing the field of physics because some people may use it to build weapons to kill innocent people.
Actually, Karma is a religous concept and that's why it would validate the argument you were making. It would not do so as a pseudo-scientific concept (which it is not). It has been widely adapted into spiritual thinking, but that does not change the fact that it originates from religion and you are correct in that the Atheist would apply the same rigors to Karma. I'm neither atheist nor-religous which leaves me in the great and beautiful position of being open to every school of thought!
Last edited:
