Adieu !

Why? How come? These are the questions Philosophers ask when it comes to a certain subject. It is fascinating, for sure, to hear the theories and comments that theorists make on particular subjects such as religion. My doubts on religion have always been persistent. I don’t believe in God, but I am open to it, I am agnostic. If anything this class has helped me with the decision to change my Christian beliefs to being just agnostic. What really did it for me were the earlier theorist such as E.B. Tylor and James Frazer. The concept of making sense of the environment around them by creating an ultimate being and other mystical justifications, led me to believe maybe this is how things were in the ages of Jesus Christ. Yea people were more civilized and had more knowledge, but they still used the subject of god to explain miracles.

The theories we have gone through in class only try to analyze how religion came about; none prove that there really is a religion proven to be worthy of worshipping. What I mean by worthy is finding that god exists, and thus finding a religion worth reverencing. The use of religion to most theorists is an event where people can escape from the realities of life, whether it is from economic turmoil, society, or explaining the unknown. Religion is therefore here to compensate for humans tendency to be submissive to the tyrants of society.

 I can’t be completely cynical. Religion can be a good thing. Why not have something to lean on when times get rough? Again, for me it’s a sign of weakness. I think Marx and Durkheim would agree on this with me. Religion is only holding you back from what really is to be concerned. As the course moved on to theorists such as E.E. Evans Pritchard’s he was able to justify to me how different religions come about. It’s all about the culture you’re in. Within a culture is the answer that explains certain beliefs within a religion. I have always believed that people with different religions believed in the same god, but now I’m thinking that’s not possible. Many religions believe that there is a higher being, but the higher being pertains only to their certain beliefs, which must mean it isn’t just one god being worshipped. Right? Maybe?

 Anyways, in this course I have learned that there are no answers. Or like the title of my blog, no right answers. All we have in philosophy are questions. Questions that generally reach to no reliable conclusions! It frustrates me when I get a bad grade when analyzing a theory. Who cares! It’s just a theory, they may be as wrong as me in interpreting something. Geez. Anyways, I am not going to lie. The theories we studied are enlightening, because a lot of them make sense (others are a little off the wall). So like the subject of hermeneutics, everything is up for interpretations. There are no right answers. 

I find that Wittgenstein and Evans-pritchards share a similar view when it comes to religion, or at least understanding religion. Evans-Pritchard would call the premises of a culture to be "intellectually coherent" and Wittgenstein would call it "A form of life". I agree completely to their point and that to understand anything, not only religion you must be placed within the context of the subject. Without the full story you can never make any good judgements or opinions. 

Agnostic

So I got to give credit to this class. I have gotten some pretty good insight on religion. I was born into a Christian family, but now I've labeled myself as agnostic. Although, as my doctor was approving my surgery for tonsillectomy , she made me choose from two religions: Agnosticism or Christian Agnostic. I was like "What?" Christian agnostic? I was so confused..So confused that I chose Christian Agnostic because at least I had a sense of was Christianity was. I chose my "religion" yet the system won't let me have my religion of choice. What.The.Heck? It makes me think. James mentions that anything can be considered religion as long as it pertains to the divine, but according to the systems that contribute to economy, the religions are limited.

Forget James for now, because I cannot begin to wonder what the heck he is talking about. So i am going to move along to Durkheim. This idea of religion being a social function really intrigued me. For one it's because I had always believed that going to church was a social function. I believed that my mom had wanted to go to church only too maintain her social ties, which in a sense is true. Although, I started to take her belief in God for granted. She deeply believes he is the One; The ultimate creator, who has plans for everyone. Thats fine, she can believe in him/her is she wants. But i understand the importance of the congregation held every Sunday. Not only is she allowed to cherish her god, but she creates a community of people with similar beliefs, and creates a bond. As I have witness as a person who discontinue her visits to church, have witnessed the deterioration of a community that I was once apart of, also I have become as Freud would consider not "mentally ill". From my absence from church, I have been able to achieve what I consider a rational way of thinking. I don't have to rely on a superior being to explain my misfortunes. I have no unity with a community of religious beliefs, other than with my family, and our religious belief. It is because of this that I believe that Durkheim is correct, religion is always somehow related to the social.

Crazy people

Freud makes me laugh. When it comes to believing in religion, we are all delusional!!
More later...

Well then...

To my new Blog....Cheers!
And now, the real work begins...