In its modern context, that's all it is and all it should be. Religion, however, was originally conceptualized to explain a universe that primitive societies didn't understand.
This is one of the many reasons I don't shackle myself to religious morality, given that many of its 'morals' are archaic and/or horrifically barbaric.
"Most religious texts"
Please enlightened me on which religions you're reffering to? If you're painting them all the same color than please read more "religious texts".
They are major religions. That matters. I'm a nonbeliever anyway, so of course I don't find inherent value in religion. Some have positive elements of course, but I'd never use one as the guide on how to live my life.
You don't necessarily have to believe in a higher order to follow a religion. Guidelines in European Paganism for example puts man as the highest order. The god's are metaphorical for human emotions, and what they can be. At least in Odinism, very symbolic. It's confusing at first put when you study it it makes perfect sense.
No, Humanist ideals were influenced from Christianity, philosophy, and past European Paganism.
The Renaissance "Rebirth" is Humanist ideals became popular agian. People went back to past European traditions, whilst trying to reform Christianity.
Where Christianity played in the mix is that all Humans are equal in the eyes of God and should be taken care of by other on Earth. I will admit Paganism teaches Survival of the fittest thus why their societies survived Persian raids, etc
A lot of Renaissance artwork and ideas came from European Paganism and past from former European philosophers. If you're talking about a time period where people left religion than you're talking about the enlightenment, which I really dislike to a degree.
But still the Enlightenment reasoning was influenced by the Renaissance, the Renaissance reasoning influenced by religions. You follow their moarls without realizing it.
Renaissance period humanism is not the same. And of course things are influenced by religion and its historical presence. But I'm not sure why you believe those who write religious texts are more qualified thinkers than secular philosophers or those who challenge those religious beliefs. Religion is not needed to be -and can even prevent one from being- a good, ethical person.
First I would like to argue morals don't come from religion "Thou shall not kill" did not just magically convince everyone it was bad to kill.
Second my morals are based of how my actions affect people. If someone is harmed, then it is something bad. It's based of the effects of my actions. You do not need religion to have morals
Moarls did come from religion, man didn't start off civilization atheist. A guideline from someone's beliefs or society's beliefs told you at a wrong age what you're doing is wrong.
Religion put together the moarls and formed a guideline for life, thus the point of the poll.
The poll wasn't asking if it was necessary for you to follow it, but if the existence of religion is to form a guideline whilst science explains why you're alive.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment