What is wrong with all religions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

What is wrong with all religions

on

  • 511 views

Summary: All religious philosophies have certain deficiencies in common such as supernatural world view, relying upon faith and belief as opposed to reason and stubborn in their refusal to evolve. Yet ...

Summary: All religious philosophies have certain deficiencies in common such as supernatural world view, relying upon faith and belief as opposed to reason and stubborn in their refusal to evolve. Yet they have served useful purpose to mankind and continue to do so. This is primarily because of their holistic character. Therefore they can’t be summarily dismissed either.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. 32nd Chapter of the book is about Culture, Religion and Science.
http://www.sciencengod.com
http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Statistics

Views

Total Views
511
Views on SlideShare
511
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

What is wrong with all religions What is wrong with all religions Document Transcript

  • What Is Wrong With All Religions?Summary: All religious philosophies have certain deficiencies in common such assupernatural world view, relying upon faith and belief as opposed to reason andstubborn in their refusal to evolve. Yet they have served useful purpose tomankind and continue to do so. This is primarily because of their holisticcharacter. Therefore they can’t be summarily dismissed either.Einstein in his address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939commented about religion that religion lays down clear fundamental ends andvaluations and sets them fast in emotional life of an individual and thus in sociallife of man. The only justification for these fundamental ends is that they exist inall healthy societies as powerful traditions, and it is not necessary to findjustification for their existence.Further, Einstein in a symposium – Science, Philosophy and Religion at New York1941 stated:- “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” “What is still lacking here is a connection of profound generality but not knowledge of order itself”Undoubtedly various religions have been established by persons of very highintellectual caliber who not only successfully understood themselves, essence ofcosmic order and their times even if subjectively but also prescribed ways andmeans of human living and human social organization. No doubt, that theyachieved all this at a subjective level but all that they said can’t be summarilyrejected for its subjectivity. May be because of deficient material knowledgeduring their times that they were unable to rationally connect things and eventsbut that is not sufficient reason for summary dismissal. They were weak in reasonbut that did not prevent them in achieving their goals and objectives of “GOODTO ALL”.
  • So even when they had in-depth intuitive understanding of various issues whichconcerned them, they were deficient in reason. They understood things andevents more at a subjective plane or intuitively rather than an objective andrational plane. Therefore, at times being philosophically correct was sufficient forthem even if not so scientifically. If they found themselves philosophically correct,they looked no further for reason; neither encouraged their followers to do thesame. Despite all this, many of their teachings have been able to find scientificsupport even if for wrong reasons and even till today 59% of humanity is religiousminded.In order to circumvent their deficient reasoning, they relied upon arguments likefeelings (emotions), individual experience as opposed to collective experience,faiths and beliefs etc. To circumvent rationalist attacks and prevent consequentdistortions in their perceptions and practices they advocated dogmatic belief intheir teachings and elevated their understanding irrespective of merits to thelevel of Gospel truth not to be questioned, not to be challenged. Only to bebelieved and followed. But the result of dogma and gospel truth phenomena hasbeen both, refusal and failure, to evolve with time and improvement in materialknowledge. They are stubborn in their faiths and beliefs and refuse to evolve withimprovement in material knowledge.But they pretended to be rational and so had to evolve a world view to rationalizetheir teachings. They had to pretend that they know and understand everything.But because of deficient material knowledge they often conjectured a universewhich is beyond sensory experience. They devised whole lot of Gods, Goddesses,deities, mythology etc. in order to rationalize their sermons. They createdsupernatural (unreal) universe and often relied upon dummy principles anddummy universe which was a creation of their own illusions and delusions.Need for evidence and reason was effectively substituted by everything being amatter of feelings, individual as opposed to collective experience, faiths andbeliefs etc. These are their stock arguments against non-believers in their faith.Their intentions may have been fair and their thinking holistic but theirunderstanding and practices were not. They froze their teachings in time as
  • Gospel Truth and labeled a dissenter as ignorant. In the matter of their corephilosophy, they stubbornly refused to evolve with time and advances in scientificknowledge. It may be partially because they were unable to reconcile their worldview and their core philosophy with advances in scientific knowledge or theywere victims of their own image.But what is common to all religions in our times, is seeking scientific approval oftheir faiths and beliefs. Church for a long time supported scientific movementhoping that this will lead to literal evidence in support of Biblical faiths andbeliefs. This continued until there was a parting of ways as both being differentand irreconcilable. Darwin was a devout Christian and he began his journey tocollect evidence in support of Biblical view of creation and it continued till hefound evidence to the contrary. But all the evidence that Darwin put forth did notchange the Biblical view of creation.Scientific advancement of the past few centuries and its consequential culturaleffects have led to followers of various religious philosophies seeking scientificapproval of their religious philosophy or claiming that their religion is scientificbecause their religion has found support in scientific principles and practices,even if partially and even for wrong reasons. But being philosophically correct isdifferent from being scientifically correct. Being philosophically correct does notearn scientific status for any religious philosophy. For this they have to establishthemselves in entirety in a manner which is in accordance with scientific method.So the best any religion can claim is partial scientific approval of its philosophyand its practices from scientific stand point and nothing more. But that does notgive any particular religion a scientific status.Summarizing, all above all religious philosophies are based upon deficientmaterial knowledge, have supernatural world view, refuse to evolve with timeand have primarily a historical existence. Various religious philosophies eventhough holistic in character are not rationally sound in entirety. However theirholistic character has empowered them to address several issues that concernhuman beings that they are able to sustain despite scientific advances of past fewcenturies, even if as a matter of faith and belief.
  • Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written thebook “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book beginswith first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explainscosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of lifeand evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliaryconcepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the onlybook which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.32nd Chapter of the book is about Culture, Religion and Science.http://www.sciencengod.comhttp://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm