"The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. " Christopher Hitchens
Do you agree? Or do you think that without religion, man is "lost", either literally in an afterlife, or metaphorically, in the 'here and now"? One truly believes in "God" as a personal being, while the other is a more "socialized" undestanding. Is the socialized understanding against what our Enlightened Founders understood to be the basis of our liberty?
Does it take religion to get man to "behave himself"? Or is man made to develop morally speaking? And how is that to be accomplished? Is such "moral development" an innate nature, or is it something that is culturally defined and determined?
Is man only a blank slate that society and his environment "form"? and what and how does individual experience "form" or correlate to society's impact?
Does man's environment impact him physically, or does his physical pre-disposition impact his "understanding"? Science has determined that liberal and conservative bents are innate/genetic or pre-determined...How much is pre-determined by our genes...and how is this pre-determination influenced/impacted by one's environment...and how?
These are questions that science is studying, and bringing in new results and information that will impact the future of our understanding of religion... amd society at large! We must stay informed...
Showing posts with label faith interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith interpretation. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Religion Set Itself Apart
Religion is man's attempt to to 'be special" and not just the result of evolutionary "process". Human beings have always attempted to "set themsevles apart" for some "special purpose".
The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".
"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.
The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.
Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".
The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".
"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.
The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.
Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Absolute Uncertainty
If we only conceive of God because we "need" God, then, that doesn't prove anything about God, so much as us. We are limited and finite, and dependent on many things to survive.
Some believe that God is necessary for "life", and believe in "other worlds", or God's intervention within time...But, do we know this really, or is it just an interpretaion of events? We only see what we look for, in that we "see" God working or "explain things other situations away", And this is what many call "faith", which is really interpretation.
Others say that the only thing that is possible to really know is what science tells us. Therefore, their views do not "see" other scientific ways of understanding the same situation, circumstance, or events. We speak a specific language according to the speicific discipline and many think they address the "whole world" and all things with that specifice and limited knowledge.
People just do not know anything apart from what they place their trust in and whatever they put their trust in is still limited in view of the whole. So, all we know is that we do not know, but in part. This fact alone should cause a humble approach to any problem in the name of our limited view.
Some believe that God is necessary for "life", and believe in "other worlds", or God's intervention within time...But, do we know this really, or is it just an interpretaion of events? We only see what we look for, in that we "see" God working or "explain things other situations away", And this is what many call "faith", which is really interpretation.
Others say that the only thing that is possible to really know is what science tells us. Therefore, their views do not "see" other scientific ways of understanding the same situation, circumstance, or events. We speak a specific language according to the speicific discipline and many think they address the "whole world" and all things with that specifice and limited knowledge.
People just do not know anything apart from what they place their trust in and whatever they put their trust in is still limited in view of the whole. So, all we know is that we do not know, but in part. This fact alone should cause a humble approach to any problem in the name of our limited view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
