Thursday, January 12, 2012

Agnosticism Why Atheism Is Not Religion

Agnosticism Why Atheism Is Not Religion Image
Recently, some people have gone around claiming that Richard Dawkins is turning atheism into a religion. This is hardly a new attack since religionists have always been claiming that atheism is just another religion. Of course it is nonsense, but "why" is it nonsense?

We'll start by noting that every religion is an ideology, but that not every ideology is a religion. To be a religion, an ideology needs a power structure. There are plenty of atheist religions, including but not limited to: Leninism, Maoism, Fidelismo, Bushism, Statism, Objectivism, and Buddhism. Maoism in particular had a sufficiently strong personality worship to make it a cult. So did Objectivism. But atheism is not yet nor is it becoming a religion.

There's a bit more than that because otherwise the Boy Scouts would be a religion. There needs to be an element of adoration, veneration or worship tied up in the hierarchy. So that's what a religion is: "the confluence of an ideology, a hierarchy and adoration".

Getting back to Dawkins, the atheism movement epitomized by Dawkins just doesn't have the power structure to be a religion. Dawkins doesn't have enough power among atheists and it is exceedingly unlikely that he could ever accumulate such power. To see why, ask yourself what privileges he has gained from this movement. Also ask who his subordinates in the movement are supposed to be.

And although Dawkins is doing all the right things to set himself up as a religious figure, this is an illusion. What he's actually doing is setting himself up as an authority on this one narrow subject. Meaning, he's playing the kind of power politics which is the lifeblood of any respected scientist. His behaviour is hardly unusual.

RELIGION


We've defined religion in a very particular way. What's important here is this is not "yet another" definition of religion. It's the "correct" definition of religion. And it's correct because it:

* includes all the things which are understood to be religions
* excludes all the things which are understood to not be religions
* creates a meaningful and significant distinction
* different from all other distinctions
* broadening the utility of language for communication, and
* provides insight into the phenomenon

Now, it might seem that Maoism is not commonly understood to be a religion, but things are a bit more complicated. In reality, most people aren't familiar enough with Maoism to be able to judge whether or not it is a religion. Furthermore, most political scientists "do" consider Maoism to be a religion. So there's more than enough reason to at least set it aside from the class of counter-examples. In the case of Bushism, it's a combination of Americans being too close, not intellectually honest enough, and of their not being familiar with Bushism per se.

When you examine all the things on which there is "broad consensus" that they are religions or not religions, defining a religion as a power structure wedded to an ideology makes a lot more sense. It then becomes obvious that the supernatural claptrap that comes with religion is incidental to it. This is an important and meaningful insight, well worth the price of using an unusual definition.

IDEOLOGY


Of course, having defined atheism as an ideology, opens it to attack as an ideology. But this isn't much of a vulnerability. Consider the case of anarchism. Some anarchy-ists are very ideological about anarchism, and other anarchs are pragmatic to an extreme. Since pragmatism is an intrinsic part of the anarchist ideology, it becomes clear that anarchism is both "an ideology and its own anti-ideology". A notion that will resonate with anyone who's studied physics.

Atheism is in the same camp. It is both an ideology and an anti-ideology. It is a distinctly anti-religious ideology. But it is also its own anti-ideology, contrary to the claims of agnostics and contrary to the claims of the enemies of scientific rationalism. Agnostics being intellectually dishonest and scientific rationalism being an anti-method. Both of which will be the topic of future blog entries.

On these grounds, it's clear that atheism is impervious to principled attack. Principled being the key word here since there's no lack of manpower among the ranks of the intellectually dishonest and the magical thinkers.

You also may enjoy these free books:

Ole Wolf - Analysis Of The Church Of Satan The Emperor New Religion
Anonymous - Introduction To The Old Religion Lesson 7a
Anonymous - Introduction To The Old Religion Lesson 7

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Theology Of Sufi Religion

Theology Of Sufi Religion Image
Religion in the ordinary sense of the word, as known by the world, is the creeds. There are not many religions in the world, but there are many creeds. And what does creed mean? Creed means a cover over the religion. There is one religion and there are many covers. Each of these covers is called 'Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism / Hebrew Religion, Islam / Muslim Religion,' etc., and when you take off these covers, you will find that there is one religion, and it is that religion which is the religion of the Sufi (or you can keep it nameless if you dare or if you can comprehend what is nameless). And at the same time a Sufi does not condemn a church or creed or a certain form of worship. He says it is the world of variety.

Everyone must have his choice of food, his choice of dress, his choice of expression. Why must the followers of one faith think that the others are heathens or pagans? The Sufi thinks that we all follow one religion, only in different names and different forms; but behind names and forms there is one and the same spirit and there is one and the same truth.

And now coming to the idea of what religion consists of. The first thing in the religion is the idea of God. What is God? Some say that 'my idea of God is that He is in the highest Heaven, that He is the Creator, that He is the Judge of the Last Day, that He is the Forgiver.' And there is another one who says: 'My idea is that God is all, God is abstract, all is God, and if anyone believes in a personal God, I do not believe it.' Both are right and yet both are wrong. They are right if they see the other point of view and they are wrong if they see their own point of view. Both see the God-ideal with one eye. One sees it with the right eye and the other with the left eye. If they see with both eyes, then the vision is complete.

It is indeed an error on the part of man to limit God in the idea of a Personal Being, and it is wrong in the person who believes in the Absolute God, to efface the Being of god from his conception of it. As they say: 'To explain God is to dethrone God.' To say that God is abstract is like saying: 'God is the space, God is the time.' Can you love the space? Can you love time? There is nothing there to love. A beautiful flower would attract you more than the space. And nice music will attract you more than time. Therefore the believer in the abstract God has only his belief, but he is not benefited by it. He may just as well believe in no God as in an abstract God. Yet he is not wrong. He is uselessly right.

The most advisable thing for the believer of God is to first make his own conception of God. Naturally man cannot make a conception which he does not know, of something he does not know. For instance, if I told you to imagine a bird that you have never seen, which is unlike any bird you have ever seen, you will first attach the bird to wings, then you will see the head of the cow, and then perhaps you will imagine the feet of the horse, the peacock's tail. But you cannot imagine any form which you have not seen, which you have not known. You have to embody from your mind a form which you already know. You cannot make a conception which you have never seen or known before. Besides, it is the easiest thing and it is the most natural thing for man to conceive of any being in his own form. When man thinks of fairies or angels he sees them in human form, and therefore it a person conceives of the God-ideal, even the highest and best way of conceiving will be in the highest and best human personality. There is nothing wrong about it. That is all that man can do.

God is greater than man's conception, but man cannot conceive Him higher than he can. Therefore any man's God is in his own conception. It is useless, therefore, to argue and to discuss and to urge one's own conception upon another. For the best way a person can think of God is in the way he is capable of thinking of God.

And then the next aspect of religion is the ideal of the Teacher. One says that: 'My Teacher is the Savior of the world, the Savior of humanity. My Teacher is Divine, My teacher is God Himself.' And there is another who is ready to oppose it, saying that it is not true, no man can be called divine and now one can save the world, each one has to save himself. But if you look at it from the Sufi's point of view, the Sufi says: What does it matter if a man sees in someone he adores and worships and idealizes, God himself? After all, this whole manifestation is God's manifestation. If he says that in that particular Teacher he sees the Divine, there is nothing wrong about it. Let him call his Teacher Divinity. I am sorry for the one who does not call his Teacher the Savior.' Besides that, we each have an effect of our deeds on the whole cosmos and if a high soul was called by someone' the Savior of the World,' it is not an exaggeration. One wicked soul can cause such harm to the whole cosmos, and one holy soul by his life on earth can do so much good, directly and indirectly, to each being in the world, because each soul is connected with the whole cosmos. But for the Sufi there is no dispute about it.

If a Buddhist says: 'Buddha is my Savior, if a Christian says 'Christ is divine,' if a Muslim says ' Muhammad was the seal of the Prophets,' if a Hindu says ' Krishna was the expression of God,' the Sufi says: 'You are all justified; you each have your name, individually or collectively. You are calling my Ideal. All these names are the name of my Ideal. You each have your own ideals. I have all these names as the name of my Ideal. I call my Beloved: Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad. Therefore all your ideals I love, because my ideal is one and the same.'

And now comes the third idea in religion, and that is the idea of the form of worship. Perhaps in one religion there are candles lighted and there is a form of worship. And there is another religion, even a song is not allowed to be sung in the church. In another religion they call out the name of God and pray to the Lord with movements. In another religion they have put a statue of Buddha on the altar as the sign of peace. These are different expressions of devotion. Just as in the Western countries by nodding and in the Eastern countries by raising their hands, they salute one another. It is the same feeling, but the action is different. What does it matter if one greets in this way or in that way, is it not all a greeting? The Sufi says, so long as there is real devotion, it does not matter in what way it is expressed. For Him it is the same.

. from Religious Gatheka #66, by Hazrat Inayat Khan (1882 - 1927), may God bless his noble soul. // text credit via wahiduddin.net

Al-Haqqu min Rabbika; fala takoonanna mina almumtareena.

The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not of the doubters.

- The Quran 2:147

# Resources and Reading


. The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan

. Hazrat Inayat Khan

. The Spiritual Message of Inayat Khan

[+] Please visit MysticSaint.Info For full multimedia experience and enjoy special music.

Blessings,
Sadiq



Keywords: ancient egyptian religion  all of greek gods and goddesses  lucid dreaming how to  enochian table  satan religion  spells rituals  name of egyptian gods  mythology gods and goddesses  all the gods and goddesses