Blog Archives

Part 10

6/29/2015

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 10: The Pope who would have Burned his own Father

The complexity to deal with a myriad of gods in polytheism as described in Part 9 must have been a heavy burden for our ancestors who had very limited resources. If disasters upon disasters still struck in spite of unfailing sacrifices and continuous appeasements, then which god should be blamed and held accountable? For ancient Egyptians, was it Amun, Anubis, Atum, Isis, Nut, Osiris, Ra, Seshat, or Sobek? For the Aztecs, was it Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatlipoca, Huehueteotl, Tlaloc, or Xipe Totec? For ancient Greeks was it Apollo, Artemis, Chaos, Gaia, Kratos, Mania or Zeus? Or all of the above?

Enter the revolutionary idea of monotheism, which was introduced either by Akhenaten (who ruled Egypt from 1352 to 1338 BCE), or by Abraham (the progenitor of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The simplicity to appease a single god in monotheism was certainly quite appealing. For sure it must be much more cost effective and convenient than to deal with a dozen ones. Thus after experimenting with animism, primal religions, shamanism, idolatry, pantheism, polytheism, paganism throughout millennia, eventually Homo sapiens came to their senses and discovered the simplicity, elegance, and enlightenment of monotheism. Less is more. Humans should lived happily ever after.

Not so fast.

Unfortunately monotheism, by its very nature, came with its own dark shadows and curses. The tendency to monopolize the truth—checked. Vulnerability to black-and-white dichotomy, bigotry, zealotry, religious fundamentalism, and fanaticism—checked. Hostility against pluralism and diversity—checked. Indeed monotheism could be inherently hostile against pluralism as evidenced by theocratic states enforcing totalitarianism. Characterized by the 3Es of Exclusivity, Exceptionalism, and Ego, monotheism has nurtured fierce competition instead of spiritual enlightenment. Is the number of gods inversely proportional to the fanaticism of their believers?

Indeed among the so-called Abrahamic monotheist religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—horizontal (inter-) and vertical (intra-) religious conflicts and sectarian violence are not an exception; they are the norm. My religion is better than yours; my Yahweh gives me special birth rights; my Allah is mightier than your God. What's for me, me, and me does count, and nothing else at all. The Middle East—the cradle of human civilization (writing, agriculture) and the great monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)—has been a hot spot plagued with sectarian violence, bloody territorial disputes, protracted wars, and suicidal nihilism since the end of World War II.

Why?

Perhaps The World Fair of Religions parable written by no less than Anthony de Mello (1931-1987), a Jesuit priest, in The Song of the Bird (1982) explains it all:

My friend and I went to the fair. The World Fair of Religions. Not a trade fair. But the competition was as fierce, the propaganda loud. At the Jewish stall we were given handouts that said that God was all-compassionate and the Jews were his Chosen People. The Jews. No other people were as chosen as they.

At the Muslim stall we learned that God was all-merciful and Mohammed his only Prophet. Salvation comes from listening to God’s Prophet. At the Christian stall, we discovered that God is love and there is no salvation outside the Church. Join the Church or risk damnation forever.

On the way out I asked my friend, "What do you think of God?" He replied, “He’s bigoted, fanatical, and cruel.” Back home, I said to God, “How do you put up with this sort of thing, Lord? Don’t you see they have been giving you a bad name for centuries?”

God said, “It wasn’t I who organized the fair. In fact, I’d be too ashamed to visit it.”

Oops. Instead of worshipping, we have been embarrassing "our God" all along … Some may vehemently protest that the aforementioned story is just a puny parable concocted by a crazy Jesuit priest, but think: What we call the Bible is actually nothing more than a collection of other parables. A parable is a parable—a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson—and one parable is not more legitimate than another. It's all about parables, it's all about narratives. Plain and simple, basically religions are based on nothing but narratives.

Hence religious absolutism packaged in monotheism has become another nail in the coffin of pluralism and diversity. Shameless coercion has become the name of the game. In Notes on Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson lamented: "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand."

Here we are, more than two hundred years after Jefferson's lamentation. Religion has elicited the best—from selflessness to humanitarianism—but also the worst—from fanaticism to cruelty—in the human character. Our history has been littered with religious wars, persecutions, cruelty, violence, and zealotry. Crusades, inquisitions, reformation wars, stonings, witch-burnings, jihads, fatwas, decapitations, suicide bombings, abortion-clinic murders, religious persecutions even genocide—have been committed in the name of, who else, God. "If my own father were a heretic," Pope Paul IV (1476-1559) said, "I would personally gather the wood to burn him." In 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a Hindu zealot; in 1981, Anwar Sadat was killed by a Muslim zealot; and in 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a Jewish zealot. Even World War II, a "secular" war, is tinted with some religious overtone. "Who says I am not under the special protection of God?," Adolf Hitler famously said.

[To be continued.]

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

Part 9

6/22/2015

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 9: An Eskimo Hunter and the Local Missionary Priest

Nothing is easier than self-deceit.
For what each man wishes, he also believes to be true.
-Demosthenes (384-322BCE)

Let's review the ages of several religions. As of 2015, the Church of Scientology is 62 years old, Mormonism is less than 200 years old, Protestantism is about 500 years old, Islam is around 1,400 years old, Catholicism is almost 2,000 years old, Taoism is around 2,300 years old, while Buddhism and Confucianism are about 2,500 years old. Judaism is estimated to be 4,000 years old. While scholars and historians agree that Hinduism is now the oldest organized religion, its estimated age is unknown as it was not established by a single founder armed with a single holy book at a single point in time. As "non-prophet organizations", ancient religions do have a more organic, more collective, less individualistic nature, yet a more bottom-up structure.

In the grand scheme of things, religion can even be considered as a modern phenomenon. Even the oldest known and practiced religions (Hinduism, Judaism) are still younger than writing (more than 5,000 years old) and agriculture (more than 10,000 years old), much less oral language. Scholars are still arguing about how old oral language is. American linguist, philosopher and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky, puts an estimate of 100,000 years. The takeaway: humanity survived, even flourished, during pre-religion era as evidenced with the inventions of (at least) writing and agriculture.

In fact, without religion, the end was never near—even for our ancestors with their hand-to-mouth lifestyle in the Neolithic and Mesolithic eras. With religion, it's a different story. The end is always near, as evidenced by the Watchtower Society's innumerable "second coming" doomsday prophecies of 1878 (then repeatedly revised to 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975), the July 1999 Nostradamus' disaster-centric prediction, the 1997 Heaven’s Gate doomsday scenario, the December 21, 2012 Mayan apocalypse, and God-knows-what-is-next. (Hello, here we are, in 2015.) It's as if religion was created to instill a sense of fear in people—the more, the better. Author Annie Dillard once relayed a story about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Eskimo, "did you tell me?"

The reason, my dear Eskimo friend, is financial gain. William Blackstone warned in Jesus is coming (1878), that "the word was to become Armageddon." The end is near, due to "the lawless trio of communism, socialism and nihilism" are "preparing the way for Antichrist." Until Blackstone died in 1935, however, Jesus had not come and the world was still revolving, the sky still blue. No worry; over a million copies of Blackstone's book had been printed in 48 languages, making it "one of the most influential religious books of the 20th century." It has never been about Jesus or Armageddon or the End; it has always been about how to exploit fear for financial gain. As observed by Stendhal (1783–1842): "All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few."

One thing is certain, however: oral language predates religion because it is impossible to proselytize and construct a narrative (e.g. Hell, the Garden of Eden, the Babel Tower, the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments) just by grunting—that's why chimpanzees do not have a religion. (Thank God.) Another takeaway: God didn't create man in his own image. Instead, man created gods in their own images. That's why the Old Testament god got angry and cranky. The New Testament god is more forgiving. The Greek gods and goddesses were jealous, gluttonous, alcoholics and loved orgies. The Aztec gods were obsessed with the points of the compass and weather systems—more on this later.

In Breaking the Spell (2006), professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett estimates that two or three religions come into existence every day, and their typical lifespan is less than a decade. Easy come, easy go. "There is no way of knowing how many distinct religions have flourished for a while during the last ten or fifty or a hundred thousand years, but it might even be millions, of which all traces are now lost forever." In Religion: An Anthropological View (1966), Anthropologist Anthony Wallace put a lower number and estimated that since the dawn of humankind, Planet Earth has hosted nearly 100,000 religions. It goes without saying, each claiming a monopoly of the truth and each refuting the others.

Whether the number is a million or 100,000, a religion is just that: a religion. It's not The Religion. To put matters in perspective, let's use the Aztec religion as an illustration. Who are we to judge them, and let's not be ethnocentric, but the Aztecs believed in sacrificing thousands of innocent men, women and babies merely to appease Huitzilopochtli (god of the south), Tezcatlipoca (god of the north), Huehueteotl (fire god), Tlaloc (god of the rain), and Xipe Totec (god of the east and water). For the sake of appeasing those gods, the Aztecs believed, they ought to kill innocent human beings, even babies, every now and then.

As it turned out, even those baby-hungry gods were impotent and failed miserably to save the Aztecs. With the help of the Aztecs’ native rivals, Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes attacked their capital, Tenochtitlan, on August 13, 1521, effectively ending the Aztec civilization (including their religion). Indeed, like us, the Aztecs fully believed in what they believed, but in the end nothing mattered. Their gods were helpless, their culture collapsed. Had they not sacrificed their men, would their army been stronger to resist Cortes—who knows? Their unbelievable belief were far from unique, however. Ancient Hinduism is another example. In A Survey on Hinduism (1994), Klaus Klostermaier states that there was disagreement over whether the higher Lord is Siva (Lord of Destroyer or Judge) or Vishnu (Lord of Preserver or Protector), and many have been killed for their belief in this matter. In fact, the Lingapurana promises Siva's heaven to one who kills or "tears out the tongue" of someone who reviles Siva.

[To be continued.]

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

Part 8:

6/15/2015

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 8: Correlation between Religion and Morality: Illusion or Reality?

As far as the positive correlation between religion and morality is concerned, it is instructive to compare four past rulers of Southeast Asian countries. Ferdinand Marcos, a practicing Catholic, ruled the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. Suharto, a practicing Muslim, ruled Indonesia from 1967 to 1998. Lee Kuan Yew, a self-proclaimed non-believer, ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990. Thaksin Shinawatra, a practicing Buddhist, ruled Thailand from 2001 to 2006. Three among these rulers were forced to resign and eventually convicted of corruption, though they never served time. (Obviously, proceed of corruption come in handy to retain the best lawyers in town or to live lavishly in exile.) One ruler is exceptionally known as "Mr. Clean" however. Guess who was "Mr. Clean"? Everyone knows the answer. Let me stress again that the problem is not with the beliefs themselves—whether Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, or Atheism. The problem is with the misplaced belief as if there is a positive correlation between religion and morality.

Am I saying that religion is totally useless? No, I'm not. Institutionally, religion has comforted the distressed, empowered the oppressed, and advocated for the poor. The significance of humanitarian aid, food banks and food drive donations organized by churches, mosques, and temples cannot be ignored. In the 1960s, without the empowerment that was galvanized by the Black Church, Dr. Martin Luther King would not have achieved success in the Civil Rights Movement. In Latin America, Bishop Oscar Romero (1917-1980) of El Salvador spoke out against poverty, social injustice, assassinations and torture. While offering Mass in 1980, he was assassinated by a right-wing death squad who tortured and killed thousands of civilians before and during the Salvadoran Civil War. In India, Mother Teresa's charity work has helped those with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, abandoned children, and orphans.

However the notion that on a personal level there is a God watching each of us individually to prevent us from committing evil—thus it's his fault if we still do evil—is a ludicrous (yet convenient) attempt to avoid personal responsibility. A news clip reported that "(a) band of criminals has disrupted the government by raiding the treasury. Their gang rule has made money so scarce that many farm hands are out of work and few farmers can afford to hire them." Was this from a newspaper in 1850? No. Or 1950? No. In fact, it was published on an Egyptian papyrus in the city of Memphis, in the year of recession of 3,068 BCE.

The more things change. . .

While corruption has been committed as early as 5,000 years ago, innumerable religions have claimed their creed are the best to affect morality. Whether the objects of worship are Amun or Horus or Bastet (ancient Egyptians), a burning bush, the forest (Central African pygmies), a dream (Kalahari Desert bushmen), Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II's consort (Yaohnanen tribe on the southern island of Tanna in Vanuatu), God or Allah, the insatiable thirst to worship something has always been around. How do we reconcile the tendency to commit evil with the universal desire to worship? Is the correlation between religion and morality an illusion or a reality?

American biologist and researcher E.O. Wilson maintains that there is some biological basis for religiosity. He argues that "theological over-beliefs offer consolation in the face of adversity, and that these religious over-beliefs provide a functional means of adaptation." In Why We Believe What We Believe (2006), based on brain scans of subjects as they pray and meditate, Andrew Newberg (professor of radiology, psychiatry, and religious studies) and Mark Waldman (associate fellow at the Center of Spirituality and the Mind) even argue that there is an inherent biological need for meaning, spirituality and truth. For many, that need is fulfilled by a religion. "Man shall not live on bread alone …"

By now, it should be crystal clear that I'm not in any position to bash any belief system or religion. After all, I was raised in a Roman Catholic household by a Catholic father and Confucian mother, sent to all-boys Jesuit middle- and high-schools, and once even aspired to become a priest (for heaven's sake)! I was born in Indonesia—a country with the largest Muslim population in the world—so I have interacted with quite a few Muslim friends. (That's why I have never understood why American Conservative Christians always demonize Obama by portraying him as a Muslim, because I have experienced first hand that there are good and decent Muslims as there are bad and callous Christians. Even if Obama is a Muslim—for the record he is not—so what?)

In spite of all the benefits of religion as outlined in Part 6, it's important not to lose context and perspective and be mindful about Stockholm Syndrome encroaching our beliefs. "I" may think that "my" religion is the greatest, sure!, but throughout the ages religions have come and gone, and the majority of organized religions derive from a cult. A cult evolves into a sect, then a sect evolves into a religion, before it splits again into various denominations. For the majority of beliefs, in order to classify one, just apply a formula introduced by Leo Pfeffer (1910-1993): "(I)f you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." This may explain why the Church of Scientology is so controversial.

[To be continued.]

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

Part 7:

6/8/2015

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 7: A Little Old Lady and an Atheist Man

There was a little old lady who would come out every morning on the steps of her front porch, raise her arms to the sky and shout, "Praise the Lord!" One day an atheist moved into the house next door. Over time, he became irritated at the little old lady. So every morning he would step out onto his front porch and yell after her, "There is no God!"

Time passes with the two of them carrying on this way every day. Then one morning in the middle of winter, the little old lady stepped onto her front porch and shouted, "Praise the Lord! Lord, I have no food and I am hungry. Please provide for me, oh Lord!"

The next morning she stepped onto her porch and there were two huge bags of groceries sitting there. "Praise the Lord!" she cried out. "He has provided groceries for me!" The atheist jumped out from behind a bush and shouted, "There is no Lord. I bought those groceries for you!" The little old lady threw her arms into the air and shouted, "Praise the Lord! You have provided me with groceries and You made the devil pay for them!"
-Cathcart & Klein (Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, 2007)

After outlining the benefits of religion in general as well as stating significant contributions from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam (in Part 6), it would be unfair if I skip atheism. Because not to believe is actually a belief in itself. Without a North, there won't be a South. Likewise, without beliefs in God, there won’t be atheism. The reason we don't have anti-gravity believers is because everybody believes in gravity—well almost everybody. Indeed atheism—while devoid of a belief in the supernatural, creed, sacred holidays, narrative, ceremonies and rituals—still provides meaning, spirituality and truth for non-believers.

Lacking a top-down organization, authorities, hierarchies, and theology, atheism has not contributed contemplative and evocative music as well as spectacular architecture in the forms of magnificent churches, splendid mosques, and imposing temples. On an individual level however, contributions from atheists cannot be dismissed. Contrary to popular belief—my dear parents taught me that atheists are bad people—not all atheists are savage nor harmful. (Sorry mom.) Admittedly, history is littered with tyrannical and dictatorial atheists: Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il to name a few.

Nevertheless, there have been highly regarded atheists as well. Hippocrates (460-370BCE) is regarded as the father of universal medicine and widely credited for the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm." Epicurus (341–270BCE) promoted Epicureanism "to attain a happy and tranquil life characterized by peace and freedom from fear and pain and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends." I'll take that in a heartbeat! Thomas Jefferson (American Founding Father, principal author of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President of the United States) drafted the famous sentence: "(A)ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Mark Twain (1835-1910) was an anti-imperialist and adamant supporter of the abolition of slavery and emancipation of slaves—while the Catholic church was conveniently silent about it. George Orwell (1903-1950) consistently opposed British imperialism, social injustice, and totalitarianism; while peaceniks Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) were adamantly opposed against war. While personally I would not categorize Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg as saints, in December 2010, admire them or not, these three self-proclaimed non-believers signed the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge", promising to donate at least half of their wealth over time to charity, and invited other billionaires to follow suit.

First, do no harm. Attain a happy and tranquil life, free from fear and pain. All men are created equal and to pursue happiness. Abolish slavery and emancipate them. End imperialism, social injustice and totalitarianism. Make peace not war. Give to charity. Believe it or not, these are all pearls of wisdom—not only in words but in actions—from atheists, non-believers.

Two separate studies even conclude that atheists are under-represented in the U.S. prison system population. In a survey of 1,916 prison inmates, American psychologist W.T. Root (University of Pittsburgh) found that almost none were nonreligious. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1997, only 0.2 percent of inmates were atheists—while 13 percent of the U.S. population was nonreligious as per 2001 American Religious Identification Survey. Say atheists are darn lucky and seldom get caught, but what about the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) annually published by Transparency International (Berlin) since 1995? Year after year, the top ranked "very clean" countries (Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Singapore) happen to be the least religious countries with high numbers of atheist-per-capita. On the other hand, the bottom ranked "highly corrupt" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen) happen to be the most religious countries with high numbers of believer-per-capita. Go figure.

Contrary to popular belief, non-believers have done less harm to the world than believers. Precisely because non-believers don't believe in afterlife, they have never been motivated enough to earn "bonus points" and engage themselves in savage wars, crusades, inquisitions, persecutions, airplane hijackings and suicide bombings. Indeed because atheists only focus in the present life, they don't give a damn about afterlife, martyrdom, heavenly rewards, and paradise—with or without the trappings of 40 or 72 virgins. Unlike believers, most atheists adopt Robert G. Ingersoll's view that "the hands that help are far better than the lips that pray"—as demonstrated by Warren Buffet and his buddies and the atheist man who paid for the little old lady's groceries.

[To be continued.]

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

Part 6:

6/1/2015

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 6: "You are Confined Only by the Walls You Build Yourself"

There are precious lessons to be learned from Lima Syndrome. First, a believer can be liberated by a belief. We don't have to be kept as eternal hostages by our beliefs, for we can change our status from observers to believers, then back to observers—if necessary. A belief can be liberating. Second, a belief should be able to stand the test of time, without any imposition of a threat whether it's hell, damnation, or excommunication. So long as we cling to a disproved belief that does not stand scrutiny and verification, we are bound.

We are free to decide whether to choose a restrictive, static, and debilitating belief (Stockholm Syndrome) or a liberating, dynamic, and empowering one (Lima Syndrome). The choice is up to us. As Voltaire said, "(m)an is free at the instant he wants to be." For there are destructive beliefs—in which we are both hostages and captors—but there are also constructive beliefs in which we are free to question our beliefs, conduct the necessary due diligence, then act accordingly. Indeed if there is something we really want to believe, that's what we should question the most. Otherwise, we are just fooling ourselves. "Believe those who are seeking the truth," Andre Gide once said; "doubt those who find it."

What we believed yesterday does not necessarily apply today. "At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look," wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, "at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." Thus as we mature from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, we constantly calibrate, fine-tune, even shed our beliefs through reasoning, cognition and a harsh dose of reality. As adults, our childhood beliefs in Mother Goose, Santa, goblins, leprechauns, and tooth fairies are out of the window (hopefully). Beliefs in UFOs, astrology, ghosts, psychics, mediums, Warren Commission's single-bullet theory, and Elvis sightings may or may not be embraced. Whereas beliefs in religious texts, heaven and hell, gods, or God will most likely stay. Meanwhile beliefs in the Big Bang, science, and knowledge that are based on empirical evidence may be accepted or denied. "Beliefs can be permanent, but beliefs can also be flexible," said Lisa Randall, a Harvard theoretical physicist and leading expert on particle physics and cosmology. "If I find out my belief is wrong, I change my mind."

A mural on the corner of NE Alberta and NE 22nd in Portland, Oregon, says it all: "You are Confined Only by the Walls You Build Yourself."

Do we really know what we believe in, and if so how well do we know about it? There are at least three critical issues as far as a beliefs are concerned. First, What do we believe in (for example, do we believe in communism or capitalism)? Second, Why do we believe what we believe (for example, whether because we are the cultural product of what was then the Soviet Union or the United States)? Third, How do we believe what we believe (for example, whether we are open-minded and humble or narrow-minded and entrenched in worn-out beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence)?

What do We Believe in: What we believe is a highly subjective and personal matter and guaranteed by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, with all due respect to our Jehovah's Witnesses brothers and sisters, in no way I'm going to knock on someone's door and try to convert anyone. Indeed, touching the explosive subject of beliefs, especially our supernatural and religious beliefs, is like walking on eggshells. Hence first and foremost, in the clearest language, let me state explicitly, here and now, that I'm *not* against any belief system.

As a matter of fact, to clear any doubts, let me start by explicitly acknowledging the benefits of belief systems, which henceforth will be referred to as religion (in singular form). Briefly speaking, religion provides explanations about the Meaning of Life and why we have to suffer. It gives us a sense of purpose and direction. Religion also comforts us to deal with failures, hardships, tragedies, sickness and deaths. It defuses anxiety. Religion provides us with guidelines for everyday life. Hinduism offers a code of conduct based on karma and dharma. Buddhism offers the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. In Judaism, there is the Maimonides' thirteen principles of faith. Christians are guided by the Ten Commandments; while Muslims by the Five Pillars of Islam. Indeed religion instills values about what is right and wrong. Throughout millennia, religion has provided societies with various tools to create social solidarity as well as establish social order and control. Indeed from a sociological perspective, as argued by Peter Berger in The Sacred Canopy (1990), religion is a social construction of reality.

In addition, various religions have enlightened and benefited humankind. While Hinduism has taught us about karma yoga (the path of action), jnana yoga (the path of knowledge or wisdom), raja yoga (the path of meditation) or bhakti yoga (the path of devotion or love) in their Bhagavad Gita; Buddhism has examined the workings of the human mind through the practice of meditation, mindfulness, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity to attain enlightenment. Literally, Buddha means the Awakened One. I will even argue that Buddhism can be regarded as Homo sapiens' breakthrough in epistemology (the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope which investigates the difference between justified belief and opinion) long before the word was even coined. The Buddha repeatedly told followers to base their convictions neither on faith nor on scripture. Instead: "Investigate, analyze and see for yourself ," he told them; "only then you can believe."

In the Middle Ages, the Abbasid Caliphate's reign (750-1258) is regarded as the Islamic Golden Age. Stressing the importance of knowledge, the Abbasids were influenced by the Koranic injunctions and hadiths that "the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr." Christianity has contributed the Gregorian calendar, Renaissance masterpieces (by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael), the modern notions of Human Rights (which can be traced back to the teachings of Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan). It also established the first universities, generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting. (This may explain why "university politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small," as once stated by Henry Kissinger.)

[To be continued.]

Johannes Tan, Indonesian Translator & Conference Interpreter

Part 10

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 10: The Pope who would have Burned his own Father

Part 9

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 9: An Eskimo Hunter and the Local Missionary Priest

Part 8:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 8: Correlation between Religion and Morality: Illusion or Reality?

Part 7:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 7: A Little Old Lady and an Atheist Man

Part 6:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 6: "You are Confined Only by the Walls You Build Yourself"

Continuously exploring literal, semantic, idiomatic, contextual, metaphorical, symptomatic, conceptual and metaphysical meanings of everything worth thinking about.

Archives

Categories

Part 10

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima SyndromePart 10: The Pope who would have Burned his own Father

Part 9

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima SyndromePart 9: An Eskimo Hunter and the Local Missionary Priest

Part 8:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima SyndromePart 8: Correlation between Religion and Morality: Illusion or Reality?

Part 7:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima SyndromePart 7: A Little Old Lady and an Atheist Man

Part 6:

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima SyndromePart 6: "You are Confined Only by the Walls You Build Yourself"

Continuously exploring literal, semantic, idiomatic, contextual, metaphorical, symptomatic, conceptual and metaphysical meanings of everything worth thinking about.

Archives

Categories

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 10: The Pope who would have Burned his own Father

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 9: An Eskimo Hunter and the Local Missionary Priest

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 8: Correlation between Religion and Morality: Illusion or Reality?

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 7: A Little Old Lady and an Atheist Man

Between Stockholm Syndrome and Lima Syndrome
Part 6: "You are Confined Only by the Walls You Build Yourself"