Nature of religion

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on nature of religion. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality nature of religion paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in nature of religion, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your nature of religion paper at affordable prices !

Why we believe what we doReligion, discipline or calling? A religion is, in the most basic of definitions, sets practices and principles inspired by the belief in a certain set of individual truths. This is not to say that they aren't true, just that not everyone believes in the same individual set. Although religion is the way of living through practices, processes and beliefs, it does not fall certain that for one's beliefs to be called a religion, one has to belong to any particular group. People often mistake religion as a group practice when actually a persons religion is a very definite, personal matter, whether the actual practice is. To discuss the "why" religious beliefs, let us first examine the why not. Weak atheism is the belief that gods don't exist, strong atheism on the other hand is the belief that particular gods do not exist and agnosticism is the belief that the existence of gods is unknowable, which is to say that agnostics believe in a supreme being / higher powers. In addition, strong atheism is usually made in reference to a particular god. After looking at all of the major religions (sometimes in a cursory manner), I do not believe in any of them. That makes me a weak atheist. I guess Im a strong atheist about most of them as well. And since I believe in divine intervention, as well as the existence of higher powers, I'm most certainly defined as an agnostic too.

Write a research paper on nature of religion

These views are not defined by any lack of belief, but rather a lack of any standardized practices. In fact, the views mentioned above are based on strong beliefs, just not in any specific gods or in the case of weak atheism, any gods at all. In contrast, in can be argued that religion is the opposite, the practice of a set of standardized practices by a person/group of people. When presented with the wide assortment of gods and religions available presently in Malaysia not to mention the whole world, and not including those that are no longer being practiced, it is difficult to single any of them out as being the true religion. Some gods/pantheon of gods, like the Greek and Roman pantheon, Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Apollo/Mars and all th others, can be shown to be rejectable on practical grounds (just go to the top of Mount Olympus. Nope, no gods there) and most others can be shown to be self-contradictory. When it comes to ethics, values or being closer to reality, I simply fail to make any distinction between Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism (Zen and other), Christianity (in its many forms) or any other. I have to say that I just do not know which is correct. I believe that with such diversity, they are probably all wrong, or all right. But I digress, by looking at religion in general, barring only religions with negative values such as Satanism, we can conclude that almost all of them including 'pagan' religions like Wicca and aboriginal religions, have the same basic values. Only thing that differs is how they go about their rituals. This view was even publicly supported by the Roman Catholic Church in statements released by the RCC- the Dominus Iesus(000)and Nostra Aetate(165) (Appendix A). If, in fact, religions were a call from the heart and not a set of practices, then whatever it was that called to the hearts of Muslims which cannot be found in any Bible beats me. Even within two religions with the same source; the most obvious example being Conservative Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, views differ not on the 'calling from the heart' bit, only the way that calling is expressed. For example, the Roman Catholic worship of saints is unaccepted by the Conservative Protestant Church bcos it involves the ritual of idolism; instead of banging on the concept, the CPC decides instead to focus on the way the concept is expressed and practiced. The RCC on the other hand rejects the protestant practice of 'rebirth' (baptizing of a teenager/adult) and believe in the baptizing of babies. It seems like all around us, religions differ in, or are arguing on minor (and major) practices. This supports further the argument that religion more practice and habit, the face of the religion with nothing behind it if you would. There are of course differences in values and beliefs (followers of the Book say that to be 'good' and to not go to Hell, u must believe in our god, Elohiem, everyone else says this is Malaysia, a multi-religious country, you go to hell), but these variations in basic beliefs are few and far apart. Moving away from religion in general, and toward religion from a social perspective, religion through default comes to mind. In a region with a strong religious majority, the Middle East for example, a country adopts the religion, a state has little choice but to conform, and individual societies and consequently family units are pulled in to this black-hole of social pressure. When a family immigrates into such a setting, more often than not the next generation will convert to the local religion, Asian and African families from their respective homelands who immigrate to the West where Christianity is the religion of the majority are a prime example of religion through default. In multiracial societies, although religion by default is not present geographically, it can be seen when a society is viewed ethnically. Let's look at ourselves for instance, in Malaysia, practically all Muslims are Malay, a large majority of Hindus are Indian and so on. In these common instances, religion cannot be defined as a calling rather a set of habitual practices, which are, although not intentionally, influenced by communal practices as well as ethnicity and religious majority. From an individual perspective, when a religion is adopted by choice, although this is seldom the case, a calling from the heart seems to be the obvious reason. When examined more thoroughly however, we can deduce that an individual again seems only to discard the practices and rituals, and seldom the core values (which, as we have discovered, are practically identical in almost all religions) his/her current religion to adopt the new practices of another. From the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding) upon the death of the Buddha, this was supposedly recorded by Ananda as one of his final teachings,At present, the monks address one another as friend, but after I am gone they are not to address one another that way. The more senior monks are to address the newer monks by their name or clan or as friend. The newer monks are to address the more senior monks as venerable or sir. (Appendix B1) Putting aside the validity and origin of this curiously instructive and uncharacteristic statement by the Buddha, as well as the fact that the Sangha elders were the ones who compiled the pitakas, we can see how a new religion can emerge from a living philosophy by a single quotation (or misquotation) calling for discipline.Even the perceived spiritual and moralistic aspect to which the individual adheres, is merely the set of actions predetermined by his/her religious group as 'good' and 'bad' (eating pork is 'bad', going to Sunday school keeps you out of hell). "Do"s and "Don't"s, if u would, and this are, in all religious groups, what defines a proper adherent from a bad one. How do religious groups define a devout adherent of the way? Most often, through the perception of the person's actions and routines and whether these actions and behaviors conform to the 'proper' ones encouraged by the religion. So much more so, when one can only believe that one is a good believer by following a guideline determining actions and daily practices. How then can it be possibly argued that religion is a calling? Here, to reinforce my belief that religious behavior and holiness is defined by actions, I would like to quote directly from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta one of the pitakas in which the Buddha's teachings were recorded. (See Appendix B)Ananda is judged to have merit in the last pitaka, the most significant of Buddhist scriptures, because his physical acts are the sum of his soul. Later in the pitaka, Ananda is described as having 4 main virtues, all of which were his related to his actions and physical attributes.(See Appendix C) As Terry Prachett argues throughout his criticism of religion, 'Small Gods' people who truly believe in something will believe it indefinitely. My understanding of his entire text and the message I believed he was trying to get across is that although the devoutly religious argue that the calling of religion is intangible, indefinable, elusive except to those who hear and answer its call to the heart, that to those who search with the eyes, ears and mind not the heart cannot help but see the shell of habit, rote and ritual that covers the divinity. But to those who believe that the school of discipline is all there is to it, religion may have stemmed from the heart and for a while, a God may or may not exist there, but over time the God is worn down by the erosion of doubt, of habit and of discipline, these feed the minds and suppress the hearts. The will of God is then slowly replaced by constant doubt, His holy rituals and prayers by our habitual semi-attentive mumblings and most importantly His way of life by nothing more than just subconscious rote and mindless discipline. (I refer to an Omnipotent Patriarchal Deity as Prachett did in his text.) And after awhile, the God dies, all that's left is a shell of procedures, a rule book in the subconscious which defines right and wrong, good and bad. When the God dies, it may not be noticed due to the prominence of religion in the mind. Now the religion is no longer a faith, no longer the belief in something more, and thus no longer has the power to make something true just through raw faith. To quote directly from 'Small Gods'- "The religion is a practice, the rituals a discipline. The 'What' and 'How' of the religion. The 'Why', the divine inspiration, the unshakeable faith is gone, along with the God." (Appendix D) AppendixA) Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.B1) At present, the monks address one another as friend, but after I am gone they are not to address one another that way. The more senior monks are to address the newer monks by their name or clan or as friend. The newer monks are to address the more senior monks as venerable or sir. B) For a long time, Ananda, you have waited on the Tathagata with physical acts of good will -- helpful, happy, whole-hearted, without limit; with verbal acts of good will...with mental acts of good will -- helpful, happy, whole-hearted, without limit. You are one who has made merit.C) There are these four marvelous & amazing qualities in Ananda. If a group of monks approaches to see Ananda, they are gratified at the sight of him. If he speaks Dhamma to them, they are gratified with what he says. Before they are sated, he falls silent. If a group of nuns approaches to see Ananda...If a group of male lay followers approaches to see Ananda...If a group of female lay followers approaches to see Ananda, they are gratified at the sight of him. If he speaks Dhamma to them, they are gratified with what he says. Before they are sated, he falls silent. These are the four marvelous & amazing qualities in Ananda. There are these four marvelous & amazing qualities in a wheel-turning monarch. If a group of noble warriors approaches to see him...If a group of brahmins approaches to see him...If a group of householders approaches to see him...If a group of contemplatives approaches to see him, they are gratified at the sight of him. If he speaks to them, they are gratified with what he says. Before they are sated, he falls silent. In the same way, monks, there are these four marvelous & amazing qualities in Ananda. If a group of monks...a group of nuns...a group of male lay followers...a group of female lay followers approaches to see Ananda, they are gratified at the sight of him. If he speaks Dhamma to them, they are gratified with what he says. Before they are sated, he falls silent. These are the four marvelous & amazing qualities in Ananda. D) "The religion is a practice, the rituals a discipline. The 'What' and 'How' of the religion. The 'Why', the divine inspiration, the unshakeable faith is gone, along with the God." Please note that this sample paper on nature of religion is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on nature of religion, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on nature of religion will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!