Philosophy of Religion/Anthropology and religion< Philosophy of Religion
Anthropology and religion!
Before we dive into this topic, it is interesting to see that there could be myriad ways to pair the religion with, like 'Psychology and religion', or 'Science and religion' and so on. But what might easily be missed are 'Zoology and religion' or even 'Schizophrenia and religion!' After all the man who created the religion with a noble intention of lifting one's outlook to a nobler alter, has also degenerated its sentiment into the current grand circus called 'religion.' It has become as fit as an animal study of zoology, or as maddening as schizophrenia!
Once we got this out of the way, let us talk about "Anthropology and religion!" In this topic, there is fundamental clash of ideas! Note the word ideas! Anthropology appears to propagate the idea that the nature evolves by itself, organisms morph and develop by themselves. Not sure if this can be proven scientifically or not, but sure wish and pray that it is provable! If proven, in fact it bolsters the argument for a Creator hundred thousand times than it opposes! And Anthropologists caught in monkeys don't realize this! They resist to acknowledge that the intelligent principle is built right into the very makings of the creation and the created. Or may be that they hate to refer to It as Creator. After all Creator is a word created by man. So It may as well be called 'Life' or even 'Qxz', after all the Real Creator has no name, nor does He care! Moreover, a stone left to itself for ever can never become an egg, does it? Let see how a man gets drunk. Because he drinks the juice of a dead and rotten fruit? So a dead and inert thing can influence a sentient being! Really? Is it the dead fruit's juice that made him morph into a hallucinating maniac or it is the live bacteria in the rotten juice that did the trick? So the boundaries of inert vs sentient blur and may easily miss our attention. Nor Anthropologists, however strongly antagonistic to the concept of Creator, will ever claim that insentient can evolve into sentient! They say only live things evolve. And they are absolutely right, just that they explain only a small but major part of the story of creation, the sentient. So why does the religion have to divorce the very life from the concept of their Creator and raise cudgels against Anthropology? After all, the very life is just one of many manifestations of the Reality, called Creator. And Anthropology, if it is a science, is just an obedient tool in establishing the reality of the Creator! Doesn't matter if an Anthropologist accepts it or not! If Anthropology does not cover insentient, that is a different matter. Just that its focus and purpose are limited but well served though. So the real Anthropology, not as promulgated for the purposes of atheism, can never be opposed to Spirituality. But to religion, it may sure be! We will see how.
Now comes the religion. This unfortunately is on a much weaker footing than Anthropology! Because the fact is, Anthropology is God's creation where as religion is the stupid brain child of the decadent lot mongering to garner popularity in numbers! When God created Anthropology, He in grained Himself into His creation in the form of Life. And made things live and kicking! And when man created religion, he too entered into to it, but only as a dead beat stupid! He got a problem now. He manufactured religion. And religion manufactured its own version of the creator. And this creator runs right in opposition to the real Creator propounded by the real Anthropology! Who is right? Does the Upper win or the mere lower? For anyone who knows even a tiny bit of English, it should become immediately clear that Upper is no doubt higher than the lower! So the real Anthropology's real Creator beats the bogus creator manufactured by the religion hands down, any time!
Now this leaves us with the question of place of religion with respect to spirituality. A true religion has extraordinarily noble and worthy intentions. It is to lift the vision from the low life to the Ultimate. To lift from the irrelevant arguments to submit and lose into the Universality and to avoid controversies and discordance. So a religion that finds controversy with God's creation, be it the Anthropology or the real religion, then it is no religion. It has some ulterior motives. So we don't have to belabor it any more. A true religion is true Anthropology. A true Anthropology is the true religion. And for that matter, any true branch of science is a profound religion!