I understand the latter thought. The only thing I can respond with is something Gandhi said:
“I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian.”
- Mahatma Gandhi, Young India (19 January 1928)
~
And for the record, I’m a Singaporean. The government itself is secular, but the culture is multi-religious, and both Buddhism and Christianity are the two largest religions (moreso Buddhism). From what I’ve seen, some of Christians are very devout, perhaps to a flaw. I get that there are poor or unpious Christians but yes, it isn’t the same for many places. And I do think that there is some truth to Gandhi’s statement. If I have to quote one more person:
If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul.
- Isaac Asimov, I. Asimov: A Memoir (1994)
4 Likes
No, it’s not that) It’s just that I think there is an extremely interesting situation in the CIS right now. Extremely interesting from the point of view of religious studies. I myself live in Russia, in the Omsk region - Kazakhstan is close by and not so far from the Altai. So it is possible to observe daily those who call themselves Christians, Muslims and Buddhists. We also have a small number of neo-Pagans, as well as a very small number of those who openly call themselves atheist.
And here’s the funny thing, you can only believe neo-pagans: they really pray to Perun and Veles, perform the rites of their faith and do not deny its dogmas. But “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Buddhist” and “atheist” are just words: “atheists” often believe in “subtle matters”, “Christians” deny the afterlife, “Muslims” drink alcohol and eat pork, and “Buddhists” pray to the gods. Belonging to a particular religious denomination has become something like a public declaration, showing the political views of the “believer”. But this is of little interest - this has happened more than once. Think, for example, of India in the time of Alexander the Great, China in the time of the Mongol conquests, or Western Europe in the time of the Religious Wars. Much more interesting is the other)
- All of these groups are characterized by a fierce rejection of the materialistic approach to the universe (even for “atheists”). At the same time, this negation is not passive, but aggressive. At one time, until I fell ill, he worked as a radiologist and often encountered this: patients do not just deny the suspicion of pathology (which is quite usually a familiar defense mechanism), but demand a false conclusion according to the type of norm. At the same time, their argument can be summed up as follows: “I don’t care what is really there - I don’t believe in the objective world, and therefore its laws do not apply to me.” Such a worldview was observed not only at work, but also in everyday communication.
- The beliefs of all these groups are very similar to each other and have nothing to do with the formally declared confessional affiliation. I.e. “atheist”, “Christian”, “Buddhist” and “Muslim” believe about the same thing.
- These beliefs are very primitive. I would describe them as animism: the whole world is inhabited by a host of diverse spirits. These spirits, as a rule, are humanized and behave like people who believe in them: they are touchy, vindictive, greedy for money and flattery (At one time, I was very amused by Nash-Myash, who advised other “Orthodox” to sacrifice the Saint Nicholas II a saucer of milk, in order to enlist his support). The afterlife is usually either denied, or they believe in the transmigration of souls (while it is funny to hear from the same person fragments of Christian ideas about the afterlife, interspersed with a fierce denial of the very fact of the afterlife/a firm belief about their own rebirth in the next life into a rich and successful one).
I get the impression that we are witnessing the very phenomenon of the collapse of the materialistic worldview and the new formation of a religious worldview. If so, this is a great opportunity for sociologists and religious scholars. The last time such an opportunity was during the decline of the Roman Empire, i.e. the event is quite rare, and therefore valuable to observe.
P.S. I apologize for this “philosophy” - it just happened somehow)
3 Likes
@ChaosCrash13 We’re getting a bit offtopic, so I’ll send you a long response in private messaging. But I’ll say this.
I recommend reading Frank Herbert’s Dune, if you haven’t. Frank Herbert wisely pointed out that, even in the far future, religion would exist in some form, albeit very much changed. Your comments also reminded me of what Dmitri Glukhovsky, aka the author of the Metro series, described in an interview.
4 Likes
I agree) Thanks) Waiting for a letter)
3 Likes
Wow. That’s actually smart
2 Likes