Religion, reality, belief

Later, he began to understand something of Buddhist practice, and saw that its atheism was exactly the kind of direction he sought.

When discussing Buddhism with questioners I define it not as a religion, but a blend of psychology, philosophy and spirituality. A very profound blend.

The Nepalese prince, Siddhartha Gautama later known as the Buddha, deserves gratitude and respect for achieving enlightenment around twenty six hundred years ago. He spent the rest of his life educating others how to become enlightened and in the process explained cause and effect, karma. One of his teachings was that each person is entirely responsible for whatever happens to himself. I note that many of the ritual, formal outward methods of paying respect to this revered tutor, particularly by Chinese adherents with strong Confucian tradition, wrongfully can suggest subservience rather then reverence.

A childish belief in things supernatural, such as Santa Claus, is enjoyable fun during the years of early growth, but should disappear steadily as the youngster becomes more educated about the truths of existence. This also depends upon just who carries out the educating.

Because religion has power as its corollary it is a potent tool for the enforced control of the ideas and actions of individuals. It is worth recalling Lord Acton’s expression in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I point out his qualification ‘almost’, and suggest that the coupling of power with greatness could depend on whether a person acts out of goodness, altruism, and the desire the improve the lot of others, or else is manipulative, scheming, and obsessive.

Nonetheless, the power of social conformity reinforces the herd outlook where arbitrary rules dominate. History has seen an immense number of harmful actions taken as a result of religious beliefs. Not as a result of truths, just mere beliefs.

We’re being subjected to some of these right now with the anti-Muslim posturing of more “orthodox” religions. These attitudes often are not the honest result of individual soul-searching, but stem from one “team” trying the beat the other.

There is a long-standing argument that implies that ethics and morality are not intrinsic personal attributes, and only come as a result of adherence to strict religious principles. Such codes of practice, created by humans, reflect human psychology. Being as strong as they are, they also provide an almost unassailable set of restrictions on individual reasoning and analysis.

Woe betides he who dares to question their authority!  But then, just what is authority, and how does it emerge? A simplistic answer could be that authority is the permission given by society to its leaders for action.

There is no divine or supernatural being who has any authority capable of being exercised. Yet at gatherings, often national occasions, prayers will be offered to that mythical entity for a desired result; “Please give us rain to break the drought”, “God save the Queen”, or in wartime the plea by preachers that one side wins and that the enemy is annihilated.

It is interesting to note that the words ‘Gods’ and ‘Gullibility’ both have ‘G’ as their first letter. Before the modern world became educated as now, there was total reliance by over-trustful people on religious mores to run society.

There are still aspects conflicting our spiritual and secular viewpoints. Do any of you remember the Sunday Observance laws of the not too-distant past? There was little tolerance of any person or activity which did not conform to the religious beliefs of the time. You could not purchase a drink at a hotel unless you went a sufficient distance from home to qualify as a traveler; you could not hold organised sporting events; shops and entertainment venues could not open on Sundays – the list was almost endless, all in the name of preserving entrenched sanctity of Sundays.