selsebil
Elite Member
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 37
The enemies of the religious life argue that religion was put together as a sort of outpouring of
man’s feeling of powerlessness in the world or of his feelings of relief and gratitude when
rescued from powerlessness. In summary form, the argument goes like this:
Certain natural phenomena proved impenetrable to man’s understanding and control, and so
he attributed them to a creator. Or, man attached to certain natural phenomena an aura of
sacredness because he derived an unreliable benefit from them─indeed, he went so far, in some
cases, as to deify such phenomena. Thus it was, they say, that the river Ganges came to be held
sacred by the people of India, or the Nile by the people of Egypt, and, in different ways, the cow
by both. Confronted by fearful insecurity in the world, they say, man sought to secure himself
by revering and appeasing what he supposed to be the source of his security or insecurity.
The division, in some cultures, of this aura of sacredness between two deities, one good the other evil, led to the attribution of love and mercy to one, and of terror and punishment to the other.
The argument carries on to ‘explain’ in a similar way the concept of hell and heaven, and
eventually concludes with the observation that religion became, for the middle classes of people
in society, a comforting illusion, and for the men of power in that society, and most especially
for the men of religion, a means of manipulating the masses─in short, ‘the opiate of the people’.
Does this argument have any real foundation?
It does not.
Religion is not by any means a consequence of infirmity in reason nor does it depend upon
any infirmity of will (fear).
Among the meanings of the term din (the religious life) are obedience, recompense, and a way
or path. These meanings are interlinked. The path is the way that leads, through obedience, to
God, the All-Mighty, and at the end of life man will have to render full account of his good and
bad deeds, all that he did on the way. In a more technical sense, din may be defined as ‘the
whole of the Divine Law as it guides any person possessed of reason to do good’. Just as the
Law distinguishes a legally responsible person from one who is not, so also the demands of the
religious life are addressed to a being capable of reason and not to one incapable. Religion is not
there because man cannot reason or because of what he cannot understand; rather, it is there
because, by God, he can reason and because of what, by God, he can understand. Further, man
obeys or disobeys God by exercising his free will. Obedience is required of him, it is not
imposed. The notion that religion happens simply because man desires to obtain a good harvest
and to avoid a bad one, in other words simply because he has no choice, no control, in his
affairs, is utterly absurd. The true religion does not negate free will. On the contrary, it most
particularly points out that nature was not created to impose upon man but to benefit him and
enlarge his potential, and it emphasizes that man was endowed with the ability to choose his
way by exercising the freedom to do so.
They say that religion comes about as a result of defective use of reason, but in truth religion
is primarily grounded in faith. Although it is possible to deduce the existence of the Creator of
the universe through an exercise of human reason, such a deduction is bound to be vulnerable
and insecure. A sound belief in God is possible only through the guidance of a prophet.
By M Fethullah GUlen
man’s feeling of powerlessness in the world or of his feelings of relief and gratitude when
rescued from powerlessness. In summary form, the argument goes like this:
Certain natural phenomena proved impenetrable to man’s understanding and control, and so
he attributed them to a creator. Or, man attached to certain natural phenomena an aura of
sacredness because he derived an unreliable benefit from them─indeed, he went so far, in some
cases, as to deify such phenomena. Thus it was, they say, that the river Ganges came to be held
sacred by the people of India, or the Nile by the people of Egypt, and, in different ways, the cow
by both. Confronted by fearful insecurity in the world, they say, man sought to secure himself
by revering and appeasing what he supposed to be the source of his security or insecurity.
The division, in some cultures, of this aura of sacredness between two deities, one good the other evil, led to the attribution of love and mercy to one, and of terror and punishment to the other.
The argument carries on to ‘explain’ in a similar way the concept of hell and heaven, and
eventually concludes with the observation that religion became, for the middle classes of people
in society, a comforting illusion, and for the men of power in that society, and most especially
for the men of religion, a means of manipulating the masses─in short, ‘the opiate of the people’.
Does this argument have any real foundation?
It does not.
Religion is not by any means a consequence of infirmity in reason nor does it depend upon
any infirmity of will (fear).
Among the meanings of the term din (the religious life) are obedience, recompense, and a way
or path. These meanings are interlinked. The path is the way that leads, through obedience, to
God, the All-Mighty, and at the end of life man will have to render full account of his good and
bad deeds, all that he did on the way. In a more technical sense, din may be defined as ‘the
whole of the Divine Law as it guides any person possessed of reason to do good’. Just as the
Law distinguishes a legally responsible person from one who is not, so also the demands of the
religious life are addressed to a being capable of reason and not to one incapable. Religion is not
there because man cannot reason or because of what he cannot understand; rather, it is there
because, by God, he can reason and because of what, by God, he can understand. Further, man
obeys or disobeys God by exercising his free will. Obedience is required of him, it is not
imposed. The notion that religion happens simply because man desires to obtain a good harvest
and to avoid a bad one, in other words simply because he has no choice, no control, in his
affairs, is utterly absurd. The true religion does not negate free will. On the contrary, it most
particularly points out that nature was not created to impose upon man but to benefit him and
enlarge his potential, and it emphasizes that man was endowed with the ability to choose his
way by exercising the freedom to do so.
They say that religion comes about as a result of defective use of reason, but in truth religion
is primarily grounded in faith. Although it is possible to deduce the existence of the Creator of
the universe through an exercise of human reason, such a deduction is bound to be vulnerable
and insecure. A sound belief in God is possible only through the guidance of a prophet.
By M Fethullah GUlen
