Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
The main thing, I suppose, would be an aid to spirituality. I am someone who believes in the existence of a spiritual aspect to life (and I fully recognise that is likely not to be a belief you share, as with belief in God, and I respect that) and so that is the main thing I would say it provides. As such, I find the pitting of science and politics as secular alternatives to religion somewhat spurious, as I believe that the only one which fits that bill properly is philosophy. I trust that addresses your question suitably but if not I am happy to expand further.
|
What do you mean by spirituality, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
I never said that was solely what it was about, and it would do you more credit in future to not jump to conclusions in such a manner. To answer your question as to where my authority to make such statements come from, I would direct you to passages such as Leviticus in the Bible, the numerous passages concerning treating one's neighbour and such like in the same work (which falls under the concept of being "part of a community"), and similar passages in the Qur'an and countless other religious works. Much as such works take their premise from a more supernatural basis, ultimately they are intended to direct human beings as to how to conduct their daily lives and live in a community based on their shared belief. I do not see how that is such a controversial statement, or why you take exception to that above all others.
|
Because I get the feeling that this idea is at the heart of the vast difference between your understanding and mine. I understand that
your religion is as you say - a guide to living decently, as it were - but I don't agree that that is what religion is to all people. If all were as you I would object much less. You make the point nicely yourself by quoting Leviticus; that is also the book that says the homosexuality is a sin and that menstruating women are unclean. A person like yourself is certainly able to choose the good parts from among the bad, but not all people do. Some people view religion as divine mandate to be followed without question, and some view religious literature as the unadulterated truth. Your religion doesn't conflict with science because you read yours with a much more skeptical eye, take the good messages from it and largely leave the rest behind. A more rigid reading though, as many people give it, produces many conflicts with science, morality, even common sense. Hence the conflict.
Again, this is only a feeling, but I gather that you think of religion largely as the kind you follow, and view the rest as a rare if rather vocal minority. From where I sit, whether they're a minority or not, I think they have far too much power to be left alone. Perhaps that would go some way to explaining the differences in our opinion.