The most common reason people belong to a certain religion is because of family tradition or cultural heritage. People tend to stay in that religion because they're generally more comfortable with familiar customs and practices or they are influenced by people who are proponents of that religion; further search is thus discouraged.
The teachings or scriptures of any religion validate that religion for its members. To use those same scriptures, as many of us do, to convince nonmembers of that validity may not have the same effect because
the credibility given to those scriptures is not the same as for a member. When adherents of a certain faith say that their spiritual book contains unrefutable truth, that may be so; however, semantics, context, relativity and interpretation of the giver, receiver and translator of the readings should be considered.
If the common foundation of most religions is what we call God, then we would expect the purpose of those religions to be Godly, which they seem to be in that they teach love, peace, high moral standards, prayer, the sanctity of family, etc. The differences among the various religions seem to be in their daily practices or social customs such as the Sabbath, clergy, marriage, role of women, diet, burial, divorce, etc. These social teachings are, for the most part, based on the message given by the founder of each religion or author of its holy book or books. The station of the founder is usually considered by that religion's membership to be higher than the major figures of other religions. Here, again, is where its own holy book is used to justify or verify that contention. If we are already believers in that claim, and that religion, it is easy to find passages in its holy book to support our belief but even statements that appear to be unambiguous deserve serious scrutiny when seeking knowledge, paying particular attention to context. An example of the type of context I'm referring to may be when a mother tells her small child to stay away from the hot stove because the child could get burned if it is too close. The same mother may tell an older child about the benefits of the stove as in cooking or providing warmth. In one context, the stove represents something bad and in the other something good, so, depending on what I want to emphasize, I can extract from "the mother's writings" that the stove is either good or bad.
The development and understanding of a human being from childhood to adulthood may be compared to the development of humanity. A young child does not understand advanced English, so the adult speaks to that child in terms she or he understands. By the same token, humankind in the past was underdeveloped as well (we had no knowledge that the earth was round nor did we have the ability to travel as we do today, etc.). That being the case, it would stand to reason that an all-knowing God would impart information relative to the comprehension of the people of that time period.
Consider this as a possible approach that God might use to spread His message (which we call religion). Let's compare it to our educational system whereby information given to the first grade students is more simple and in a language less difficult than the second or higher grades. In a religious context, the teachers (i.e. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, etc. ) may have had equal knowledge but they only imparted what was appropriate or digestible for the times, condition, and area in which they had appeared. If we accept this as God's plan, then it would mean that all people of all religions can look at all the divine teachers as equal and receiving their teachings from the same source with no religion being exalted over the other. That could have a unifying effect as far as religion is concerned (although one may ask why in Christianity, for example, are there so many denominations when there is only one Christ?). The above scenario might bring about a challenge to the person who claims to be the most recent of God's messengers because his or her message could make the more established religions, particularly clergy, feel threatened or at least uncomfortable. The reason being that the latest of God's teachings purportedly would have been more relevant to contemporary society. Historically, of course, there have been spiritual teachers whose teachings have met with opposition, but they endured and formed the foundations for several great civilizations. The decline of a civilization could be the time when a new divine teacher appears with regenerative, practical guidelines for a new era. Thus God's cyclical plan would be perpetuated.
What I have just put forth may or may not have a ring of logic to it; however, realistically most people do not approach religion logically or by using their heads but via the heart or emotions. As alluded to previously, if you've belonged to a certain religion since birth, you are generally emotionally attached to that religion regardless of what anyone says. The aspects of our religious background that we are most attached to are love for the divine head of our faith and the traditional customs (prayer, songs, ceremonies) that we practice.
These elements are, for the most part, unique to our particular religion and would be difficult to give up. If, on the other hand, we were asked to adopt new or updated religious teachings that would benefit humankind as a whole without giving up all our religious traditions or love for the spiritual leader we grew up with, we might be more open to that prospect.
When discussing religion, it is not only the so-called religious people who are concerned about the subject, but there are those who claim to be nonreligious who are also interested. There are many who call themselves atheists or agnostics or those who prefer not to identify with any formally organized group or label. Because there have been many conflicts throughout history that rightly or wrongly have been associated with religion, many have rejected the notion that religion is a positive force for society. I am reminded of a quote that has left an impression on me and I paraphrase here
"...if religion be the cause of divisiveness, enmity, strife or hypocrisy, then it would be best to be without religion and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act! " Even the definition of the word God can be so nebulous that the God an atheist does not believe in may be the sameGod that a theist does not believe in.
I believe many people who call themselves nonreligious are actually religious in the true sense of the word. This is often demonstrated by their deeds that are of benefit not only to the people with whom they come in contact, but frequently to all of humanity. To convince them that religion is an entity that promotes growth and harmony for society as well as the individual would require for the most part, an intellectual approach because they do not have an emotional attachment to religion. However, at some point the heart may be the determining factor of their views of their religion.
It is doubtful to me that anyone can actually prove
their religion comes directly from God, although
a convincing argument may be given to support such a claim. I do believe that there are religions which,
regardless of whether or not we believe they come
from God, are sufficiently godly in their purpose and practice that we should not be overly concerned with
their origins. Unfortunately, people have a tendency
to be more concerned with titles, trappings, and
traditions rather than with substance or results. If we truly believe in God, then we should accept that all things, or at least those things of a positive nature, are from our Creator.
Whether we are members of a religious group or not, religion impacts upon the lives of everyone around the world so we should know as much as possible about all religions. Knowledge of any subject, particularly those that directly relate to society, can be very useful in developing understanding and tolerance as well as appreciation for cultures that are different than our own. Religion, I would say, is one of those subjects.
Phil Morrison.
