There is a difference between spirituality and superstition; there is a difference between religion having a positive influence on human lives, encouraging and developing our better character and values, and doing the opposite, causing fear, hatred and violence.
While Atheists make a different choice than people do who follow one of the world's religions, they have no less a moral or ethical character, they also are capable of using other guidelines and decisions toward developing that better character and values.
An important line that appears to be fundamental to those differences between religion being a good influence on lives and a bad influence on human beings has consistently been that fundamental quality that requires adherence to the belief that there is only one correct religion, and it is yours, and that all other people are wrong, bad, inferior, even evil, and that they must conform to your religion. This is true whether those 'other people' follow a different religion, or no religion, or are agnostic - stressing the difference between belief and knowledge, faith and fact, and a rational approach to the distinction between what we can and cannot know, and maintaining the difference.
I am frequently saddened by how poorly many people are on the subject of comparative religion - how little most people know about any religion outside of the one they were exposed to because of familial exposure, which is the ONLY reason so many people believe as they do, world wide. Religious instruction tends to be contrived in this way, to co-opt choice through early indoctrination, where religion is often inextricably intertwined with local and regional culture, and cannot be understood properly separate from it. Which is why Christianity, for example, celebrates Christmas at the historically inaccurate time of year. It should be in spring, as I wrote about here.
It is especially problematic in those religions, notably Christianity and Islam, that require their faithful to convert others -- sometimes willingly, sometimes not so willingly.
But I find agnosticism to be even less understood than other religions, OR atheism. I often find that wikipedia provides a good entry-level kind of reference, and they do so again here on agnosticism:
(And in case you are wondering, yes, the Huxley who coined the term agnosticism is the grandfather of the famous Julian, Andrew and Aldous Huxley brothers.)While Atheists make a different choice than people do who follow one of the world's religions, they have no less a moral or ethical character, they also are capable of using other guidelines and decisions toward developing that better character and values.
An important line that appears to be fundamental to those differences between religion being a good influence on lives and a bad influence on human beings has consistently been that fundamental quality that requires adherence to the belief that there is only one correct religion, and it is yours, and that all other people are wrong, bad, inferior, even evil, and that they must conform to your religion. This is true whether those 'other people' follow a different religion, or no religion, or are agnostic - stressing the difference between belief and knowledge, faith and fact, and a rational approach to the distinction between what we can and cannot know, and maintaining the difference.
I am frequently saddened by how poorly many people are on the subject of comparative religion - how little most people know about any religion outside of the one they were exposed to because of familial exposure, which is the ONLY reason so many people believe as they do, world wide. Religious instruction tends to be contrived in this way, to co-opt choice through early indoctrination, where religion is often inextricably intertwined with local and regional culture, and cannot be understood properly separate from it. Which is why Christianity, for example, celebrates Christmas at the historically inaccurate time of year. It should be in spring, as I wrote about here.
It is especially problematic in those religions, notably Christianity and Islam, that require their faithful to convert others -- sometimes willingly, sometimes not so willingly.
But I find agnosticism to be even less understood than other religions, OR atheism. I often find that wikipedia provides a good entry-level kind of reference, and they do so again here on agnosticism:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.
Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.[4] However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,[5] Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher,[6] and the Nasadiya Sukta concerning the origin of the universe in the Rig Veda, an ancient Sanskrit text, which is one of the primary scriptures of Vedic Hinduism.[7]
So in that context, not particularly attacking Roman Catholicism here, but rather using it as part of an example of what is best and worst about religion more generally, in contrast to atheism or agnosticism, I offer these two juxtaposed images, and the additional information that the pope has multiple thrones and throne rooms, and that the papal palace in Rome alone is reported to contain 11,000 rooms, as well as artwork, archive and library worth billions, with many treasures that are priceless. This in a religion that claims to be Bible based where the texts include:
Matthew 19:24:"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." and Luke 3:11: He answered them, "The person who has two coats must share with the one who doesn't have any, and the person who has food must do the same."
We all 'pick and choose' our morals, and every religion has its own contradictions and hypocrisies, which should preclude their criticism of that in others unless they are equally willing to confront it in themselves. Although not a Biblical parable, it is still true that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and that the claims of superiority of any religion over another set of beliefs and values is on an unsteady foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment