Religion and Morality

I have decided to conform to my biological clock: Sleep as much as possible in the day, and be ultra constructive at night. For example, i'm doing accountings now at 3am...

I hope it rains 24/7 everyday. The weather's ridiculous these days. Once the rain stops in the afternoon, the night is unbearably hot. Probably global warming. Speaking of which, I was reading a booklet much earlier. Think some people drop it into our letterbox. It's some self-proclaimed spiritual master trying to promote going vegetarian to lessen contribution to global warming. Btw, here's the wiki on her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai

It's worrying what kinda people sprout out from around the world these days. Here, we're looking at a possible philanthropist who self-proclaimed herself as akin to Buddha with supernatural power. And of course, also the setting up of a religious foundation named after herself. And at the same time, being so involved in businesses. Oh. And did i I mention that telling people to chant her name will bring deliverance and aid enlightenment? To promote vegetarian and environmentalism is a good thing. But these surface acts are not indication of a true saint inside... or actually in this case, I actually doubt the sanity of this person itself...

I personally felt that in the present world, people lack healthy skepticism. Religion is a source of spiritual and emotional support. Not alot of people can stand the idea of being unable to explain events happening to them. Not alot of people can live with a "meaningless" life, therefore it must be that God has a plan for us all. Not alot of people dare to take the risk when they are told that they will go to hell if they do not believe. Not many people dare to question their own faith, for fear that it is blasphemy to even doubt. Not many people look beyond the facade (if any), and believed simply because the religion institutes they belong to are doing charitable things.

My point is, things might not appear as it is. There are many religions who claimed themselves as the one true faith. Then my question is, what gives them the right to claim so, as over all other faiths? What exact is "true faith"? Is it so important that it takes priority over humanity altogether? It is so important that you must defend them, even if it means killing/harassing/debasing/(insert negative verbs) the people who also live on this planet with you? My next question is, assuming that this "only true faith" is found, how realistic is it that the preachers of this faith be flawless? Look at the recent child sex scandal in Roman Catholic Church... or rather the whole strings of child sexual abuses in history. Those in religious authority are not necessary flawless. Who is to correct them? The believers? And if the err is less eye-catching, such as misinterpretation of the scriptures/bible, who has to authority to correct them? The proclaimed God? Last I remember, "God" haven't sent a bolt of lightening down to fire the Pope, which explain why he's still sitting comfortably in his office now.

Conclusion: Be realistic. Do what is good for others and ourselves without the need to heed all the talks about supernaturals and God. My point here is not to advocate a disbelief in God, but rather more of discourage a need to be "God-centered". If you can behave like a saint in action because you are already a saint inside you, it doesn't matter what your religion is, because (I believe that) God can't fault a saint for not believing in the incomprehensible supernatural. Of cos, all these talks assuming that God exists in the 1st place. But even if God and afterlife justices does not exist, it shouldn't make contributing meaningfully to the people around you any less important.

There was a rather pessimistic theory that without religion in this world, there would be no morality. I say... even if there's religions, doing what your religions tell you to do doesn't make you any more moral, since you're only bargaining for entry to heaven. For example in Singapore, people give seats to elderly because it's a social norm which if you don't conform, people will look at you as an inconsiderate person. So the very act of giving up seats to the elderly is not an accurate gauge that you are a considerate towards the elderly, but could be that you just don't want to feel embarrassed. At the end of the day, is Singapore a considerate society as compared to other countries? Not necessarily so.

Feedbacks are welcomed. =D