Religion and its definition

Did God invent us, or did we invent God?

-Eddie Izzard

The similar question that arises to my mind is whether religion defines us or we define religion? Everyday we meet with people from different ethnic backgrounds and different religions and hopefully, accept their backgrounds and respect their faith and their religious views. In an international school, it is the basis of building a strong friendship between other students/colleagues/teachers. In the outside world, it gives one an opportunity to learn more and openly embrace different cultures.

My religion was inbred into me when I was a child. I was taught the culture, the values of the religion and I built my faith in the many Gods of my religion. I am a product of two religions – Hinduism and Jainism. As per my will, I decided to respect both the religions and give them equal importance in my life. I performed the venerations of the Hindu gods and the Jain gods, sang devotional songs for both the religions and celebrated all the different festivities that came with both the religions. My two religions defined me – it gives me my cultural identity.

When I moved to Dubai, I was acquainted with two more religions – Islam and Christianity in more depth than I had previously known while living in India. The Islamic religion defined the country and 70% of its population. It defined my friends and I learnt to respect the religion and started learning more about the norms and values. I believed in the Prophet and believed that I could pray in the mosque as freely as if I were Muslim.

I learnt more about Christianity as I took part in camps at different churches. My friends told me more about their identities formed by their religion. I was gifted the Bible and to date, feel that reading the Psalms or just a few verses gives me the same peace that I find praying in the temple.

Every night my father and I, religiously, light a candle near the Buddha as a symbol of the tranquility required in the busy life.

The faith of Din-Ilahi defines me – I am a believer of all religions. Because I feel that it is religion that defines us.

However, not everyone perceives religion in the same way as me. Everyone has a different perspective and one must learn to respect it, even though there may be certain differences.

For example, the recent news headlines are the siege of the Westgate Mall of Nairobi, Kenya where people were taken hostages on Saturday, 21^st September 2013. 68 innocent civilians have lost their lives by being shot by the Somalian Al Shabaab group. Lucky of those held hostage, have escaped and given details of the kind of situation that they were in. One of those lucky people, who was freed today (23^rd September 2013), describes the situation in the mall.

He says that he hid his true identity – cultural identity of Christianity – and portrayed himself to be a Muslim named Hassim. He was released. The next man, an Indian, tried the same trick. He was then asked a question: ‘Who’s the mother of Muhammad?’ to which he had no reply. They shot him.

This not only angered me, but made me question whether religion is defined by the people or it defines us. The man was freed because he followed the same religion. The other was shot, probably dead by the time I am writing this, just because he did not know the religion that he did not belong to and unfortunately, his oppressor was Islamic and required the correct answer for deciding whether a life could be spared.

Religion, which is meant to maintain peace, has increasingly become the reason for violence. Palestine and Israel fight for the land, which they consider ‘Holy’ for two different religions. While in Dubai, people were pleaded, by the mosque imams, to donate blood for the fighters of Palestine.

All these events, are the symbols of how religion has become manipulated by the fanatics, who fail to recognize the essence of religion and what it actually asks for – everything except blood shed. The ethics are lost in defining religion. It is unethical to kill civilians to avenge the death of the conscripted military. It is unethical to fight and shed blood for the land that could be distributed with diplomatic negotiations.

Emotionally, the violent acts under the ‘religion’ tag, anger me and evoke me against the morality of the people. It makes me question their real faith and if they are actually able to understand that God is giving the message of peace, which they are changing to their liking. However, being angry can stop one from thinking rationally.

Thinking rationally about these acts, would evoke one to find a solution to such unethical behaviours on the personal front towards/in relation to religion. The fanatics of all religions have their ‘evidences’ for the violence from their holy books, however, when the emotion takes over they fail to see the logical approach that would solve the problems without killing and also, stay true to the religion’s values.

Our senses hear the fanatics, see their extremist acts of violence and speak about their activities, our viewpoints on it and presumably, base our opinions on their acts. Going by the idea of ‘Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil and See No Evil’ hardly occurs because we are made aware of the current events and instinctively, find the need to comment or react. As a society seeing, hearing and speaking should be used to fight this evil. One can often hear people say “Al Qaeda does all this and their religion is the cause”. However, we cannot induce that one religion is the cause of most of the fights. Blaming a religion is the start of losing faith and blindly following the activities of the majority - the fallacy of appealing to authority in the majority, ususally, the most radical of the majority.

As George Bernard Shaw says, “There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it” – the versions that we define and are often blinded by. 

The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Shawshank Redemption

#9 Use the work and research from your current research project (due 6 May), to write a journal entry just explaining how your topic is related to ToK and the WoK. 

The Shawshank Redemption is a short story written by Stephen King about a prison and the life in it. One of the themes of the Shawshank Redemption is institutionalization. Institutionalization means to succumb to the conditions of the jail and the behaviour of the prison guards. “I am what they call an institutional man now – I cannot get along on the outside” is a quote by Red, one of the main characters in the story. The quote implies that by being locked up in a place for many years, a man would get so used to the life of being oppressed that he would not be able to accept the freedom that he might win after he has served his sentence. In the story, the guards are brutal towards the prisoners and the prisoners are scared and cynical about leaving the prison. The environment created is negative because of the dead feeling for prisoners and the raging and wanting to assert power in the guards. However, the major issue starts with the wardens of the prison, who use their powers, negatively, to suppress the prisoners.

This story connects to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo, a psychology professor, started the experiment to see whether the placement affects the emotions of a person and how a person would change himself negatively in regards to his environment. In the experiment, 24 volunteers were chosen from which 12 were randomly made guards and 12 prisoners. An easy day 1, however the human psychology started showing its true colours on the second day when the prisoners decided to go against the guards due to the oppression. The guards decided to torment these prisoners by abusing them with CO₂ gassing in their cells and making them repeat that it was their mistake and that they should be extremely sorry. Eventhough, the rebellion was held by a few of the prisoners, the guards induced that all the prisoners were a risk to their life and so with the increasing days, the guards kept increasing their authority. John Wayne wanted to be the “worst prison guard that he could possibly be”. They assumed the roles, as if those of a dictator because of the position they were kept in. On the other hand, the prisoners started obeying and doing as per the guard’s wish. Their mental conditions with the confined spaces and brutality started depreciating and prisoner #8612 was the first to have a breakdown caused due to the giving in to authority – the fallacy of Appeal to Authority which would disable them from thinking rationally and remember that they had done no crime and were just part of a simulation. Their emotions were subject to the decision of the guards and the guards would not feel any remorse because of the silver glasses that they wore and which gave them no way of looking into the eyes of others, making them  more resistant to emotion or pity.

The Shawshank Redemption story is the same life of a prison, however a true prison. In the story just like the guards at Stanford the position of power is misused and the position of weakness is succumbed to as no one dares to speak against the wrong even if they are right. And the right people turn wrong. 

Note: Click on the link below to find the powerpoint presentation made by me for the Stanford Prison Experiment. 
Powerpoint presentation on the Stanford Prison

Sensory Deprevation

Reflect on your experience of your environment? What do you notice? What are you missing? What differs from your normal experience? How difficult/comfortable is it? (500 word journal entry on sensory deprivation task )

For the sensory deprivation task, I had volunteered to cover my ears with the plugs and sit in a history class. Before starting this task, I thought that it would be easy for me as I have my sight and will be able to interpret easily what everyone was trying to say. Even in daily life, I get extremely uncomfortable when I have to close my eyes, however being deprived of sound has never had a huge impact because I feel quite dependent on the sense of vision. 
When I started, I was comfortable as I could understand what Mr. Neighbour was saying because he was pointing at a question on a piece of paper and the class nodded. When he wrote the question on the board, I knew that it was being discussed. The problems started when the hands started going up and everyone started answering questions. I could see a few of them pointing at the paper and discussing something important but I could not make out what they were telling. Everything around me was just so silent.I thought that Mr. Neighbour might write those answers down on the white board, but for the next ten minutes he wrote nothing, and with hindsight there was just the question on the board for the whole lesson. I could see the hand movements when people were explaining, but they are not meant to depict any answer they were helping them with articulation. However, I could not gather any answer out of the 5 lying in front of me. As I myself, did not the answer to those questions  because I had not studied the topic before, I felt extremely anxious and uncomfortable as I was not getting any answer. Such a situation, put me in a difficult and different situation because it was challenging to learn without hearing and I realised how much we depend for learning on our auditory senses. When I did "What type of a learner are you" tests in the beginning of the school year, the results were all showing that I am an auditory learner. This added to the challenge because I could not learn and when Mr. Neighbour looked at me questioningly, I thought that he asked me a question. My friends were beside me and tried to explain but it was difficult to follow their swift mouthing. I kept saying 'slow down' so that I could *guess* what they were trying to say. If it would be written about what is being discussed, then it would be much easier but I would have to adapt myself, with difficulty, to become a visual learner. 
For any person, if they are auditory learners and they have lost the sense then it would make it near to impossible for them to learn and acquire the knowledge needed. Coming back to the feeling of complete silence, I felt at peace but uncomfortable (two conflicted feelings) - a silent torture- because I am not used to a place without any sort of commotion. I am also someone who listens to a lot of music. With the passing time, it has unfortunately turned into an addiction of putting on the headphones. Being deaf would disable me from listening to music which would be unbearable. You cannot see and listen to music. 
All emotions of uncomfortable anxiety and confusion flooded my mind and that stopped me from thinking about the mouthing and making sense out of it. The moment I took my plugs out, I could hear people and it calmed me down so much and with that sigh I realised that I had underestimated the need of a well working auditory sense. 

Real Life Example

Argument: In India if some girls who wear exposing dresses have higher chances of being raped 

                  If you wear exposing dresses in India 

                  You will be raped

vs. 

                 The world is changing and the best way to take the country forward is by accepting change and more importantly respecting women. 

                 Parties are blaming women for what a man wants. They want fully covered women like the olden times because they are not accepting change 

                 Therefore, if the countries are not accepting change they will not move forward. 

 This a typical argument made by a prominent political party of India - Shiv Sena. In the past, the party has had girls who have gone to pubs, beaten up because they were not wearing fully covering dresses. The act was brutal and they faced the negative views of the feminine society. However, other fundamentalists society members believed that their act was justified and that rapes occur because girls over-expose themselves in public. Most of the communities of India are still backward in their thinking. They always believe in what the power holder says - a common fallacy of 'Appeal to Authority'. "If a party like Shiv Sena is saying this and they are completely correct." 

I am against this idea. Mainly because firstly with a progressing world, the acceptance of women is becoming ideal. If a nation which holds a woman as their president, who have women as their Goddesses treat women like targets for sexist oppression. And moreover, they are blamed for the wants of men. Such countries will not move forward if they do not accept the terms of 'equality' and accept the changes in society. If a man can do absolutely anything and wear absolutely anything why should a woman be stopped? I agree that she becomes a target of rape but it is because of the uncontrollable urges of a man that she has to limit herself or lock herself up in the way she does not want to. In a party pub, would you expect a woman to be wearing a full sleeved Indian suit which would not allow her to move or even enjoy herself whilst the men can move freely and have an amazing time? 

Formal Logic

To what extent can we use formal logic in the real world?What purpose does it serve? What applications do you use regularly, or do you think you should use more frequently? Reflect and consider an application of real world logic that you have observed. 

Formal logic involves making deductive statements from two (rarely, could be more) given premises. They are syllogisms that are used almost everyday during a simple conversation or an argument. It helps us to derive at conclusions about almost everything in this world. For example, you could be gossiping with your friends about some new guy in the campus and the formal logic example would include: 

              -New guys are quite shy 

              -He is a new guy

              -Therefore, he is quite shy. 

The statement above may not be necessarily true because unless you record the movements of the new guy you would not know whether he is shy or an extrovert. However, such syllogisms become a part of our daily life. If you are having an  argument with a friend you would use formal logic. For example, when your friend and yourself are discussing about the Taliban activities and you are against them. You would say: - Those who kill innocent people should be executed. 

                 - The Taliban kills innocent people

                 - Therefore, the Taliban should be executed. 

This would be a valid statement because you know the activities of the Taliban and have evidence to support your statements. 

Many people use the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy in real world examples. Most of us would want to believe only those in power. If the United Nations Secretary General gives statistics they must be true and no one can challenge them. However, the statistics shown could be challenged. When the Millennium Development Goals report came out the statistics showed improvement however there was hardly any. 

                        

Manufacturing Dissent - Language

The Manufacturing Dissent ends with Noam Chomsky saying, "The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided [as they have been until now]. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are ... essential to survival." So what does this mean? Human existence, democracy and freedom – how are they inter-connected?

Human existence is connected to freedom because without freedom, humans are just like any other controlled, non-living thing. Democracy is to freedom because the people get the right – the freedom to choose their leaders and the freedom of speech to express their opinions towards the running of country. History has often showed us that hegemonies can cause lots of unrest – both violent to the country and violent psychologically for the population of the country.

There have been major revolutions in the past two years. Countries that have been under the rules of dictator want their democracy – their freedom. Egypt saw the stepping down of Hosni Mubarak, Libya saw the abdication and death of Muhammad Gaddafi and Syria is plunging into the worse of revolutions, day by day.

So what causes all these uprisings? Because of discontent amongst people. People fail to express themselves externally, which would bitter them internally to a level that would lead to an outrageous eruption. It is normal for any person to feel in such a way. If there is no means of communication, no language to express the hurt or anger, then it all accumulates inside the brain and heart and when this feeling reaches its peak – it erupts like hot lava from an active volcano. The language or the way of expressing that comes out at that time is full of agony, foul words, and inauspicious and dangerous symbolisms. To other civilized countries, the revolts may seem a portrayal of hooliganism. Or the leaders may seem like complete tyrants. But, that is what the media shows them. Unless they themselves have not seen the happenings, they cannot judge the situation and the people’s decisions by the media. The reason being that media can be very manipulative of the thoughts or the decisions that public is forming. Sometimes what we watch, see, hear in the news becomes correct to us, eventhough in reality it is far from the truth.

Media is meant to enlighten people about the truths of life – the daily happenings, morals, important messages and everything that gives knowledge. The media does enlighten us; but with knowledge that is many a times not real. In his movie, the Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky describes how the media is controlled; the media does not present the truth – leading the population to forming wrong opinions. According to him, the media is a form of indoctrination.

Indoctrination is the persuasion to believe completely in a particular thing. It is a form of propaganda. The Nazi’s used indoctrination to convince the people of Germany that they were taking the correct measures and could not possibly go wrong in their decisions. The Nazi’s were dictators. Propaganda is often termed to a weapon for the dictators. “Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to dictatorship” Chomsky suggests. I agree because propaganda forces people to believe and give up their freedom to think and create opinions by themselves. It is blocking their form of communication – their language that they possess in their thoughts. The language that the propaganda uses, reflects the hegemony of persuasive language over the language of thoughts. It can portray the worse to come in a way that the population would believe it and see it more socially correct or at times a little more positively. They would use euphemisms. For example, the secret police would be shown as the ‘protectors’ of the country. This would make the public believe that they are there to protect them, whereas their real motive is to detain certain opposition parties. The indoctrination hinders the ability to think for the people to actually dissent. Language at this point, is absolutely zero because humans are just the ‘working machines’ operating in a manufacturing company, with complete dominance of working the way the controller wants.

Chomsky suggests that “humans are blinded by faith and not reason” and that ““Future society” – should be seeking out forms of authority and challenge their legitimacy”.  It is true that most of us would follow whatever the news says. We are governed by what the media has to present to us. And media not only in the form of political indoctrination but also, in the form of normal day-to-day activities. For example, consider a teenager watching the news about some sort of revolt that a particular class of society started against the upper class. If that teenager were from the upper class, without reasoning, would go against the lower class and look down upon them. This might start reflecting in their behaviour with their schoolmates. They might start using inappropriate language with the classmates or anyone that reminds them of the news they hear or see. Their language becomes controlled by the news.

When we see our daily soaps or award shows, we are often showed commercials that use the persuasive language and draw the attention of the audience. Their use of language – the power that language holds in drawing our attention is clearly seen in advertising campaigns which compel us to buy a particular product.

In Nazi Germany, the language was controlled because people were showed anti-sematic movies leading them to further dislike the Jewish populations. Such forms of indoctrination have always proven to be successful in controlling the language of the people. It is, indeed, like the violence of dictatorship. It, therefore, becomes important for the people to challenge this indoctrination. We have the right to information, then why should our knowledge be left incomplete or biased? I believe that media should be questioned from time. It is risky for us to follow and develop a language that is of the media’s – which is not necessarily true. We should gain the necessary information. However, if not possible, then atleast we should question the media and not just blindly use its language.