Originally posted by twhiteheadI say that knowledge is important in the sense that you've got to know what you believe in (even if you don't know the why) to be religious.
No I wasnt trying to pick a fight but rather just clarify your definition. I agree with your above post in general but in earlier posts you implied that knowledge was important to be religous. I would still allow a much looser definition of religious to include anyone who follows a religion depending on the context in which it is used.
If I made a statem ...[text shortened]... end is religous I would imply that he takes his religion more seriously than the average person.
Apologies for any confusion.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot sure in what sense you mean "religion around Ignorance".
Would it be impossible to create a religion around Ignorance?
If you're asking whether it's possible for people to be "religious" about something they don't even know, I think it's certainly possible.
Originally posted by lucifershammer"We worship the ineffable Mystery of Being, which we don't pretend to understand...Blessed be That Which We Wot Not Of!"
Not sure in what sense you mean "religion around Ignorance".
If you're asking whether it's possible for people to be "religious" about something they don't even know, I think it's certainly possible.
It seems to me there are five groups:
(1) Those that simply stick with the religion* they absorbed growing up.
(2) Those who “shop,” and make a good faith decision about which religion is the best “lamp to guide their feet.” I think that some influence of preferences (“this is how I think a God ought to be” ) is likely to be unavoidable, subconsciously at least.
(3) Those who are led to one religion or another based on (their understanding of) spiritual or mystical experience (keeping these two terms separate, following lucifershammer).
(4) Some combination of the above (e.g., a person who explores other religions, has a spiritual experience that confirms for them the one in which they grew up).
(5) Those who have difficulty because they cannot accept any particular religion they have found en toto. This group might include those who ultimately find the “ground of being” ineffable to the extent that no single religion has a complete, or even sufficient, “handle” on it.
None of these seem to me to be illegitimate in themselves; each can be done in good faith. In the end, all entail a decision and risk.
* And it’s particular God-concepts. I also include by implication those who have no religion, agnostics, etc.; I’m just trying to keep as simple as I can.
Originally posted by sasquatch672"Science seeks truth" can be read as a religious statement.
Ouch dude!
How do you call science a "religion"? Science is a process of discovery. Science seeks truth.
Religion fears science, not the other way around.
Science is not a person who can seek things. By personifying science, you have made Science you object of worship. Your deity.