Tweet
This is just something I've been thinking about lately:
Since I came to poly, I've seen the creation-evolution argument pop up, well, billions of times. All the arguments centered around science and faith as competing systems of the same general sort-I.E., explanations of natural phenomena. That's understood, in the context of those arguments, as the purpose of both. As probably everyone noticed, I disagreed with these on the grounds that I regard religion primarily as a guide for moral behavior, with all other aspects secondary. That got me thinking about ecumenism-the relatively modern idea, practiced by Gandhi I think, of treating all religions as partially and equally valid truths. I always thought of that idea as a load of PC trash concocted by people too lazy to face truth(which, of course, is what atheists say about people like me, but that's another story...). Obviously though, under such a system of belief, you do not practice any religion as I think of it. If you regard all faiths as equally valid, you have no choice but to regard god as an unknown quantity with unknown desires, or else have your beliefs constantly warring with each other. Hence ecumenism, naturally, cannot function as a moral guide. It's still called religion though, so obviously others don't think of religion the same way I do.
How do you define religion? What's the point? What do you guys think? Is it an alternative to science, a security blanket, a moral guide, none of the above, or some of each?
Yes, I realize this will probably turn into a flamewar...sigh.
Since I came to poly, I've seen the creation-evolution argument pop up, well, billions of times. All the arguments centered around science and faith as competing systems of the same general sort-I.E., explanations of natural phenomena. That's understood, in the context of those arguments, as the purpose of both. As probably everyone noticed, I disagreed with these on the grounds that I regard religion primarily as a guide for moral behavior, with all other aspects secondary. That got me thinking about ecumenism-the relatively modern idea, practiced by Gandhi I think, of treating all religions as partially and equally valid truths. I always thought of that idea as a load of PC trash concocted by people too lazy to face truth(which, of course, is what atheists say about people like me, but that's another story...). Obviously though, under such a system of belief, you do not practice any religion as I think of it. If you regard all faiths as equally valid, you have no choice but to regard god as an unknown quantity with unknown desires, or else have your beliefs constantly warring with each other. Hence ecumenism, naturally, cannot function as a moral guide. It's still called religion though, so obviously others don't think of religion the same way I do.
How do you define religion? What's the point? What do you guys think? Is it an alternative to science, a security blanket, a moral guide, none of the above, or some of each?
Yes, I realize this will probably turn into a flamewar...sigh.
What are bad things? Seems a rather poor list.
Comment