Several years ago, I spent the better part of a rather uneventful Friday morning whiling away the time in a StarBucks Franchise at Westfield Parramatta. Being devoid of any worthwhile company, besides a tall black, I amused myself by thumbing through a day old copy of the Sydney Morning Herald. The remaining few moments were spent counting the scores of schoolchildren filing through a nearby McDonalds for breakfast of sub-standard pancakes. It was in observance of a rather chatty group of Year 11 & 12 schoolgirls that I happened to reflect upon a friend's comments concerning the:
Note: Those wondering where Jaci’s single "On My Knees" can be found need only search through shelves containing "Christian Pop Music" at any Christian bookstore. The album to search for is the aptly titled "A Heavenly Place". Yeah, I completely pissed myself laughing as well ....
Religion and Prayer
As a starting point it is difficult for me to grasp the concept of prayer without reference to religion. So, it naturally follows that I shall first attempt to glean some understanding of why religion exists. Most say that it exists to satisfy the human need for spiritual fulfilment. "Spiritual fulfilment" interpreted simply, and somewhat cynically I might add, presumably equates to a need to feel comfortable with things deemed to be beyond human understanding. I hesitate to say "outside of" because I do have faith in a person’s ability to grasp difficult concepts … provided he/she did not attend a religious private school in Parramatta of course (read Christian Brothers). There are always qualifiers.
So … the need to believe in god/s arises from the inability to understand the origin and purpose of life. But a grave problem arises here. The need I speak of relates to things deemed beyond human understanding, rather than personal understanding. However, my ignorance of how a TV set works (ie inertial guidance) does not lead me to give rise to religious explanations. Thankfully, I happen to carry out my existence in a society replete with those who understand the principles behind such systems. These individuals, being possessed of highly specialised knowledge, are able to explain the relevant principles to me in simplified terms. However, if a certain friend of mine is correct and I did in fact once exist as a "Jungle Bunny" from deepest darkest Africa, these same concepts may have once engendered mystical of religious belief. These vibes for the "supernatural/paranormal" would’ve been further exemplified had I been I receipt of the Playboy channel. Indeed, certain elements within the Hefner empire often bring forth statements of "I did not know man could make such things." This is true even in Australia, where there exist a multitude of medical practitioners.
My answer for the existence of prayer is that of cause and effect. I n simplest terms, things went badly when the gods were pissed. Consequently, prayers and supplications were offered as a means of appeasement. Persons claiming to understand the gods, or who could predict happenings such as eclipses, became the priests to the gods. Human emotion can be swayed by sorrow, remorse and pleas for forgiveness. Naturally, the concept of repentance grew to be part of the rites for appeasing the gods. The control of religion in this manner is an immense source of power. Prayer can serve to be an invaluable reserve of strength when cultures clash.
My arcane analysis above leads me to exclaim "OK .. prayer helps when the faithful take up arms. What else besides?". Using reverse engineering it’s possible to examine the content of prayer and then discern why people pray. So .. what does a normal prayer comprise?
- Adoration
- Confession
- Thanksgiving
- Supplication (ie divine intervention – petition for our own needs and intercession for others)
"Dear God … You’re awesome. By the way, I had lewd thoughts about my neighbour’s wife and manipulated myself hence spilling valuable seed. I’m really sorry it happened. Ummm .. this may not be appropriate but thank you dearly for the extra sensory nerve endings in my genitalia. By the way, would there by any chance of you breaking up my neighbours’ marriage. I don’t think she’s happy with him anyway."
Whatever purpose prayer might serve, it’s obvious that it ought to be left to the individual. For example, atheists and non-Christians were rather taken aback by the flow of Christian rhetoric which bombarded TV screens following the Sept 11 attacks – everything from televised prayer vigils to Bush shouting out that God was on America’s side. This rather outlandish comment from a Christian president appalled most free-thinkers who (a) believed that the distinction between Church and State ought never to be forgotten; and (b) questioned the use of religion as a means of rallying support for some alleged greater American cause. Was Bush attempting to push prayer through as a national agenda? Or was he simply using it as one of many separate resources to console the nation?
President Bush’s proclamation of Friday, September 14 as a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance" is indicative of the pitfalls of the "God is on our side" mentality. It may well be natural for religious/pious persons to turn to religion or prayer for solace BUT was it ever the role of the US President to urge citizens to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, or to observe a National Day of Prayer with worship?
The American Atheists argued that just because a person does not have a particular religious disposition does not make him/her any less patriotic. Bush ought to have displayed a little more sensitivity to the cultural/religious diversity of the country he purports to lead. Additionally, consider the words of Civil War Col. Robert G. Ingersoll who said "The hands that help are better than lips that pray".
Why philosophers and policymakers, both theist an atheist, should have less credence leant to their views/observations than the "pearls of wisdom" sprouted by ancient scriptures? Persons involves in high level negotiations/decision making know for a fact that trust and confidence is primarily in the person, but the religious context may nevertheless be of importance: it is an asset known to have a strict ethical codex, provided that one is also known to follow it rigorously.
Can Burgess Carr, a well known African theologian, commented that the presence of religious personalities on the international stage is not without due emphasis. In short, they’re perceived as providing space to discuss social problems as well as giving a voice to those who have none. A religious figure is perceived as hearing persons of all social levels. He/she has credibility, the flexibility to talk to all sides. A religious figure will listen not only to leadership, but to the people.
Although true to some extent, we’re doing ourselves a massive injustice if we believe that religious leaders are infallible to the temptation to assume political power in times of social change, thereby retaining the distance that allegedly permits them to be critical of all political leaders.
Practitioners of any one particular faith are often bunched together as far as perception is concerned. A senior consultant at a friend's workplace recently exclaimed to her, in wonder, how surprised he was to hear that people from Islamic backgrounds had difference beliefs, factions, practices etc. She responded by saying "You don’t see me wearing the Hijab do you? Interesting that it took the fine people from the Discovery Channel a whole hour to tell you something you could have picked up in a single glance."
The reason why religious "pearls of wisdom" get so much attention is because they’re thought of as absolute truths. Advocates of religion/faith in its various forms often stipulate the existence of a set of shared fundamental values, inculcated various by each religion but transcending all of them, which could one day serve as a worldwide ethic for human rights. These speakers tend to emphasise the need for ecumenical dialogue, so that religious leaders can discover and fortify the common ground. Such an approach can be set to assume the existence of a universalisable core of religious beliefs, a common set of humanistic values in every faith. At this point I am reminded of a certain Simpsons episode in which Lionel Hutz contemplated life without lawyers. He visualised a meadow in which spiritual leaders from various faiths held hands in a circle and danced and swayed to 70s hippie music. The very thought made him shudder in revulsion.
I personally have doubts in adopting an ecumenical approach towards any kind of dispute resolution. The authentic core of any religion is precisely its fierce particularity. Mutual respect between religious civilisations is arguably best achieved with the acknowledgment of the irreducible and incomparable nature of religious life.
In 1995, a conference took places which was titled "The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict". The starting point of this forum focused on the difficulties of speaking of religion as a generalised concept. Sentences beginning with the phrase "All religions …. " were vehemently challenged. Delving into particular beliefs and practices in search of "common ground" reflects a misunderstanding of religion, and is destined to produce little fruit in terms of conflict resolution. In defence of religion, it’s worth putting forth a comment by Raimo (conference participant) who pointed out that religion is the only authority that can successfully compete with the state in defining the good and in justifying the taking of a human life.
Do we really need religion to point out the bleeding obvious though? Pearls of wisdom such as "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" can be learnt through human experience alone without reference to ancient texts. However, most theists do not perceive religion and morality as being capable of mutual exclusivity. Nonetheless the complex ethical systems which exist today have been explained through evolutionary and biological models. Nietzsche described morality as the herding instinct of the individual. Evolutionary theorists view this simple yet profound comment to put forth the proposition that religion evolved for the purpose of man’s survival within a group. The best manner in which the individual may be regulated is to give him a stake in his destiny by means of morality. Religion is an effective way to do so by taking spirituality, a personal matter, and making it a public affair, where it can be regulated. The mutually exclusive nature of many religions helps make this uniformity possible.
Further, and I believe that most would agree with this, religion is severely outdated as a means for communicating morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment