The Real Meaning Of Religion - Essay Example

Critical Definition: Case study of Religion In The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer, the term religion appears as a critical term that requires a lot of attention in order to discern the true meaning. In order to devise the most suitable definition for the term “evolution of morality”, it is important to discern how the author utilizes the terms. In his topic, the author compares words using contemporary theology and religion scholars. The author has a conviction that the progressive utopian that underlies religion does not clash with the concept of faith. In fact, the fundamental premise of the book is that moral propensities and principles are the end-result of forces of culture, laws of nature, and the contingencies of history (Shermer, 18). The author presents a contention that believers do not need to be alienated. Since the general acceptance for the existence of God makes it acceptable for one to believe that God created and laws of nature to inculcate within human beings a moral sense. Furthermore, He also inculcated moral principles within human cultures. Without religion, it would be hard to achieve morality. This remains the basic premise from which the true definition of religion can be developed, and it serves as the principal target of Shermer in his book. At the fundamental of Shermer’s argument regarding the evolution of morality, is the denotation and actual sense of religion. Shermer describes religion as a social institution that progressed as a fundamental mechanism of human philosophy (Shermer 7). The importance of the origin of religion was to create and promote myths with a view of encouraging cooperation and altruism. Furthermore, religion encompasses the discouragement of competitiveness and selfishness. Thus, the real meaning of religion is the revelation of the level of obligation for members of the community to unite and return goodness. Shermer poses the question; can individuals lead moral lives in the absence of recourse to a transcendent being that might or might not exist? In his query, he recognize the immediate and historic function of religious practice in inculcating moral values. He argues that the true meaning of religion enable one to develop moral character while observing ethical way of life. The author creates the most precise definition of religion. He argues that it is important to ask the following question: can individuals construct an ethical system in the absence of religion? The answer the Shermer proposes appears to be affirmative on both counts. He does not belittle or disregard human partialities to be harsh, self-centered and bloody. Rather, he is convinced that the history of the human race proves that it is the nature of human beings to be good than to be bad. Contemporary studies in social research have tried to depict religion’s public influence by placing much emphasis on collective or individual religious actors. Within such a unitary model, religion is comprehended as a uniform feature of given individual or a collection of people. According to Shermer, “religion evolved around social structure to enforce the rules of human interactions” (Shermer, 18). However, recent studies have demonstrated that religious expressions outside the domain of religious congregations differ by content to a large extent. Of course, there is a palpable human and sinful face to the religion given that religions are characterized by human organizations and confederations, which are very susceptible to sinful activities. One may question whether individuals within the religious associations comprehend this reality more than those who prefer to practice their spiritual beliefs. In attempts to practice spirituality outside the realms of religious institutions, not all people are likely to contend with the notion of being indeed ‘religious.’ Rather, there are people who state that they only desire to live moral lives, perhaps one centered on God, but based on their personality and individuality (Roberts &Yamane 22-36). One may rethink the whole idea of associating to a particular faith or owing allegiance to churches, synagogues, mosques, and many more. Self-spiritual belief, on the other hand, encapsulates some sense of freedom from unnecessary dogma. The proponents of this realm contend that a person can be oneself before God. Another implication here is that one has sampled several religious beliefs and integrated them into one single life. The resulting religious perspective is one where an individual subscribes into many religious faiths, for instance, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, but without any definite confinement to either of the religions. This way, one has an opportunity to conjure what best shapes their lives without having to subscribe to any of the religious faiths as that would be very much confining. Self-spiritual belief means that a person’s spiritual belief is not represented by any particular creed. According to the application of the term in Shermer’s concept of morality, it is plausible that the religion is not something we can make sense of in the conventional sense. This appears quite irrational with the main problem being that people have a tendency to change religion into a set of doctrines and rules. This means that people try to intellectualize things that are simply outside the scope. Indeed, religion encompasses a sphere of its own, and this means that its transformation may at once recognize any misunderstanding of any given manifestation of religion into a doctrine. There is an apparent lack of any fusion of logic with existence by asserting that existence cannot be described logically or objectively. According to him, the logical uncertainty of Christianity and an individual’s relation to it represents the highest truth for an existing person. This means that the truth is subjectivity and faith does neither arise from scholarly deliberation, not does it come directly. Instead, within this objectivity one is bound to lose that personal, infinite and impassioned interest, which is essentially a condition of faith. Most people seem to perceive religion and ethics as two inextricably intertwined concepts and hence that which is considered ethical arises from religious perspectives such as religious sermons or texts. However, an analysis of Shermer’s work creates a belief that living for ethics and devotion to God is two different things. In the ethical perspective, the desires of the collective are put above everything else while, in the religious sphere, one must place God above everything else. This makes the two domains completely incompatible. The other major difference between the pious and the ethical spheres is that not only is God placed greater than the universal, but the discrete is also placed higher than the general. It is notable that Faith is the paradox that a person “as a single individual is higher than the universal is justified before it, not inferior to it but as superior” (Walter 268). It is plausible that Shermer’s version of religion in the concept of morality might appear totally incomprehensible from an outsider’s perspective. It may not seem to make any sense but, paradoxically, this could be the main reason the author asserts that it works. Religion is thus a paradox between the unbiased hesitation and the innate desire of the individual’s inwardness. Thus, the human experience is that of making decisions; seeing something objectively does not necessarily require a commitment; hence it cannot be termed existing. However, when uncertainty persists, the individual must take control of his/her life and to make a choice whether to believe or not. Essentially, the greater the vagueness - the greater the peril the follower takes in believing. This means that when the paradox becomes paradoxical in itself, it intends to repel the individual by essence of its absurdity thus making faith the corresponding passion of inwardness (Walter). The question that arises here is what religion is made. In conclusion, a critical analysis of Shermer’s works and those of much philosophy and religious scholars reveals that the concept of religion exempts any form of rational analysis. It deals with manners and customs followed by communities and societies when practicing faiths or beliefs. Leaders from a religious perspective establish truths about its teachings whereas theological leaders embark on analytical truths. Theology also deals with rational analysis on religious faiths. It establishes proofs rationally and analyses the religious truths that emanate from religion. It ignores customs and tries to examine principles that form the basis of a given religion. Works Cited Roberts, Keith & Yamane, David. Religion in sociological perspective. Pine Forge Press, 2011. Print Shermer, Michael. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005. Print Walter. Kaufmann Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003. Print. Read More