Religious fundamentals...the probligo view

From my somewhat distant (and short-sighted) viewpoint I think of religion (and we are speaking the most general case possible here) as consisting of four basic elements;

• The definition of the spiritual objective – at its simplest “The path to eternal life”, sub-titled “Don’t be afraid to die”.
• A pseudo-legal framework – The Ten Commandments as an example – for the guidance and control of behaviour within society.
• A pseudo-scientific framework – a creation myth is almost obligatory but the idea is not limiting - to help elders answer all those annoying questions that people ask like “Where do I come from” and “Why are we here”, and “Who lit the stars?”.
• A mixture of history and myth.

As I have both stated and implied, I am not qualified to “analyse” the validity of these four headings in relation to any particular religion. It seems to me that there are many very worthy people who have undertaken that task and many more will follow.

So, as this “personal pilgrim’s progress” develops I am going to delve into MY relationship with, and view of, each of these headings. That way, I can see myself as being “safe” from the criticism of error and falsehood because I can plead “This is me”. Where I draw what I see as parallels, then I have already stated my willingness to stand corrected or to debate the validity of the criticism.

For those with greater learning than I, I trust that you can accept the simplicity of my view. It is an idea that grew out of (was certainly not the conclusions drawn by) Huxley’s ”The Perennial Philosophy”.

The other thing to understand is that most if not all that I say has been said before. Perhaps not in the same form or words but certainly in principle. Where I am certain of an idea’s source (such as The Ten Commandments I used as illustration above) I will give credit. Where a reader can see a parallel, please draw my attention to it (kindly of course) as this will expand my knowledge.

The converse is true also. I have not gone out dredging texts to find learned confirmation and support for my statements. Primarily this manner of quotation out of context is aggravating in the extreme for those who know the source. I do not want that to happen.

For each of these principles then, I am setting myself the objective of showing that;
• each can exist outside the framework of an organised religion.
• each can exist without the need for a deity to confirm or justify them.

Because I am expressing a personal and unique view rather than trying to formulate universals, the validity of my argument hangs by a thread. It is always going to be broken by the objection that “There are very few people (is that a good or bad thing) who can adopt the approach that you have taken.” Take that one step further and I will admit here and now that there are often times when I can not keep to the rules and ethics I have set for myself.
The final qualification is to recognise the connection between religion and culture. As I am the product of a nation, a culture, and a family of predominantly Christian outlook that is undoubtedly the base of my belief. It is inescapable. It is something that I hold in common with most other New Zealanders. Where I want to draw the distinction is where I see myself not complying with that culture.

That comes with the conclusion that because I live in NZ, my life, my culture, my being, is largely compliant with the Judeo/Christian model in exactly the same way that it would be Muslim were I born and raised in Saudi Arabia of Saudi parents, or Bhuddist if I were Thai and so on. Therefore when I model my beliefs, my ethics, upon the Judeo/Christian pattern it is a consequence rather than a conscious choice.

However, I do not believe that conclusion in any way invalidates my idea that being a-religious (as in a-theist, or a-political) is possible and sustainable.