Friday, July 27, 2007

Faith

After Roth, reading about the Mycogen sector of the Galactic empire (Ref.: Foundation Series, Issac Asimov), deepened my doubts in 'faith'

There is something about faith that puzzles me extremely. Why does faith need to be so dogmatic and binding? One would assume that the thought of a benevolent super-power should set you free. It would make you respect the life that he has given, and live it with greater vitality, rather than tie it down in rituals.
Why are we so insecure about faith that we need to reinforce it and feel offended when a person flouts confirmity? Can the Pope seriously believe that his religion is so shallow that reading Harry Potter would influence children away from it? Can Parsi's think that their religion can only be conserved by marrying in their own community? And does Hinduism stand on the pedestal of a long shattered and forgotten temple? Is it not faithlessness that people do not believe in the strength of their Gods or deem him a martinet?
I agree that rational is irrelavant to faith, but are rules the replacement of rationality?

4 comments:

Shefali K. said...

I sometimes feel faith is beyond religion. It is crazy, sometimes you are binded by your faith, not religious but self-confirmed, that it itself is independence to you. Does that mean independence is subjecive? Perhaps we also choose the limit of our independence, in turn our faith. Is it?

Madhuri said...

Are you saying faith is a limitation of independence?
I was talking of the faith of the confirmed kind - in fact even the self-conforming faith becomes restrictive if forced on someone else.

Shefali K. said...

I don't mean faith is limitation of independence. But faith itself is your independence. It is a very personal thing,and cannot and should not be imposed. It can be relative - so is independence. ??

hindu said...

Every action of ours is determined by the faith that the possibility can be actualized. The degree of sincerity in our actions is determined by how badly we crave for the actualization of the process. For the devotee, therefore faith in the belief is exploring the possibility for the actualization of "better things in afterlife in dualism" or "moksha" in semi dualistic faiths

When this act of faith transgresses the personal/private realm and encroaches upon the "other" [even within family like spouse or children] it becomes dangerous, a threat to freedom. But it becomes positively perverse like in case of the aggrandizing semitic faiths where it invades the domain of ethnically-socio-culturally diverse belief systems.

"And does Hinduism stand on the pedestal of a long shattered and forgotten temple?"

->> I could not convincingly deconstruct your cryptological mooring. Hinduism is a multidimensional and decentralized way of living, so obviously its pedestal is exclusive of ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, who erected the temple in the first place? The self-conscious Hindu identity is itself a defensive consequence of the Islamic invasions. Previously, a Hindu queen like Kumaradevi, could be seen sponsoring Buddhist viharas. Nevertheless, sometimes these faith based identities are unavoidable while facing the clash of civilizations.