Talqas Syarofa – 14110205

February 18th, 2016

Reflective Paper

Perceiving Religion
For centuries, civilizations have been built upon collective cultured livelihood discoveries
and counter-discoveries before then destructed overnight just the same. Scholars from related
fields are taking stand as to how they put meaning into each events, every details; yet some
overall pictures are just the way they are. The long-lasting similarity in all these populated
culture—beside the science—is the incorporation of some worship-like metaphysical activities,
in which most study refers to as religion.
When talking about religion, I learned that people—no matter how hard they try to be
‘objective’—are entitled to have coming-from religious schemes where they plug their wire of
understanding into. People can try to untangle themselves from what they perceive as biased
axiom, but it is very unlikely that these attempts at detachment meets an end where they
successfully cut loose every (certain religion-nuanced) religious thinking structure and
perspective they must’ve needed to understand religion in the first place. So if we were to talk
about religion in a context devoid of all existing clauses about established religions, the first
method that comes to mind is to approach it from the perspective of humanity, as it is least
contamined with doctrines from any religion yet tight-knotted to religion itself.
Now I’ve heard numerous statements about religion through this lens. Those statements
are mainly reason-based. Out of all, the one that intrigues me the most is the one that says God—
the central aspect of religion—is the manifestation of human’s limitation. This notion
emphasizes in the disability of our material being to follow through human’s naturally borderless
imagination, hence the appearance of divine entity, ‘the Power Beyond’—who (or rather, which)
embraces the impossible. It is in the blood that human thrives to eliminate lapses; in logic, in
basic need, in between expectation and reality. When mind cannot fulfill these lapses and self
cannot reach, human then entrusts them to some unworldly figure because imagining it floats
unprotected is an against human nature option. This figure is then assigned ‘the God’.
Even when I typed that, I got goosebumps in realizing the human arrogance.
 However, this paradigm is flawed in the eyes of those who truly seek divine assurance. If
there really is a God, why would He be in the gaps of reasons than in all aspects of life? Why
would He choose to act on some events than the others? Why does He seem to be the
manifestation of human ignorance rather than the highest conclusion of searches?
Whenever I crossed path with those who question religion, they are either belonged to
‘God is the filler of human’s powerlessness’ side or the ‘why is that?’ side. Both parties gave
birth to atheists and devotees, depends on the stance they take in each perspective. If we muslims
are to take a side, I’d say we’re in the ‘why’s that’ team but with an answer. We believe,
wholeheartedly, that God does not dwell in gaps, does not act selectively, does not associate with
human ignorance—He is everywhere, has a hand in everything and is the final answer to all kind
of query.
Isn’t our answer sort of doctrine-ish?
Of course it is.
But......?
Faith’s nature is to believe, right? Maybe someday, if ever. But I don’t think I’ll ever be
able to back it up with reasons. Faith—to believe—is ours, philosophy—to doubt—is
theirs. I don’t know how that’ll meet.
In the end, even people of the same background perceive religion differently. To
convince others (and simultaneously ourselves) of our own faith, I’ll have to see it from their
perspective, because if what I am holding onto (Islam) is the absolute truth, it’ll look right no
matter where I see it from. That way, I can preserve my faith and fasten my grip to whatever this
religion asks me to more undoubtedly.