Thought Turbulence (Part 2)

Having previously written about a few thoughts in the past, on this occasion I try to express the thoughts that often swirl in my head. I couldn't put it into writing because many things were not by the environmental and religious norms in it, but that's okay. I don't want my thoughts to be limited by anything because I don't think that God forbids the use of the mind that He has embedded.

The problems that are currently spinning in my head are not far from religious issues, although not infrequently social, political, educational and other issues also begin to emerge. I don't know if these issues had a good impact on my personal life or not, but I felt powerless to let go of the issues in the turbulence of my mind.

The first or the most dominant issue that revolves in this head is religion, to be precise, religion vs. science. I have devoured several books with the theme of modern science. From these books, I concluded that it seems that science is slowly eating away at the foundations of religion. Creationism is opposed to the theory of evolution and cosmology; doomsday theology versus astrophysics; mystical experience versus neurology. It is quite interesting to see the development of this struggle between religion and science because in the future it seems difficult to imagine a synthesis between religion and science.

Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned atheist who loudly shouts atheism and refutes basic religious arguments says if there is a God, he will answer the question "Why don't you believe in God" with the answer "Not enough proof God, not enough evidence in the world upon the existence of God”. Would God accept such an answer? Wallahu A'lam. Richard Dawkins has not stopped exploring the natural world in search of God until now. There are many more people like Richard Dawkins who continue to search for proof of the existence of God.

Does believing in God need proof? I think that the so-called belief does not require proof, because of the position of belief above reality. I agree with Soren Kierkegaard who more or less stated "The existence of God or religious doctrine does not require proof, because if God can be proven, then God is not special".

Right now I am in disbelief in heaven and hell. Is this against the teachings of Islam? Not, because believing in heaven and hell is not part of the pillars of Islam. The doctrine of heaven and hell seems like reinforcement for a child. Doesn't it seem like hypocrisy if humans do good for others if they only want heaven and fear hell? Isn't it hypocrisy if people worship their God because they want heaven and are afraid of hell?

Wouldn't it be more beautiful if humans did well for others and worshipped their Lord based on sincerity? If the basic motive is sincerity, this is not hypocrisy. Therefore, at this time I think that the doctrine of heaven and hell is just like reward & punishment as in the psychological theory of behaviourism. The doctrine of heaven-hell is only for small children to bring up good behaviour. Supposedly, after reaching adulthood, humans no longer need to use these heavens and hells as a religious motive to behave like children.

It's really sad to see people who kill other people based on heaven's motives, will God be happy to see His creation kill each other to fight for His heaven? Did God lack the power to create a paradise so narrow that only a handful of people would defend him? Is God not so powerful that he needs humans to defend his religion?

Ah, sometimes I get dizzy thinking about things like this, but these thoughts don't seem to want to let themselves out of my head. I do not know whether this is classified as the thought of the infidels. May God continue to guide me so that I can be a better person than yesterday. Hopefully, I can carry out the role that God has given me in this stage of His play, this is my prayer that I always offer to Him.