The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
When human beings lack a good natural explanation for a phenomenon they often accept a supernatural divine or diabolical explanation. For example if we do not understand this thunder and lightning stuff, it must be something a sky god does when he is angry. The next question is how much do we have to pay the priest to make the god happy.
Scientific method is a good basis for developing our understanding of the natural world. It does not prescribe a final explanation. As more evidence is gathered and new ideas are developed, new questions and approaches arise. It takes time for major changes to be made in mainstream science. Scientists are human too, but in the end the science community follows the evidence.
As science advances the need for supernatural explanations declines. We now know what thunder and lightning are, so we have no need of a god hypothesis to explain them. No doubt the priest is sad that the advance of science has deprived him of a portion of his income.
The sort of interpretation of religion that regards a sacred text created thousands of years ago and an interpretation of it created tens of years ago as the last possible word about what is, so that the evidence of what is must be manipulated to support the prescribed conclusion contained in an interpretation of the sacred text; is the absolute antithesis of science.
The part of religion which probably is valuable, is to meet the needs of some humans for ethical and moral guidance and a sense of comfort.
Different religions are more or less philosophical. Some religions are at their very core philosophical. In other words, if you remove the philosophy there is nothing substantive left.
I believe that Buddhism, the Religious Society of Friends, and Unitarian Universalists would fit under this category - amongst others.
aspiring to genteel poverty
As Science progresses , more and more things become rationally explicable, and the scope for religion is reduced. It used to be called "God of the Gaps" - i.e. residual religion in niche markets not yet explained by science.
Index of Frank's Diaries
A number of groups define religion for propaganda purposes. The thing is not all religions play the game.
Religions are not wholly composed of appeals to the supernatural. There are ethical and moral principles, that stand independently of the supernatural. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is probably quite a good idea, even if you do not believe it should be obeyed because Moses took it down at the dictation of a supernatural entity.
I also suspect that the spirituality humans feel, which is the core around which the superstructure of organised religion developed, is itself not dependent upon supernatural explanations. It is something that has value, in and of itself, whatever the cause of it is.
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 20 26 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 15 23 comments
by Oui - Jun 20 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 11 31 comments
by Oui - Jun 14 27 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1 157 comments
by Oui - Jun 6 5 comments
by gmoke - Jun 8 9 comments
by Oui - Jun 24
by Oui - Jun 23
by Oui - Jun 22
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2026 comments
by Oui - Jun 20
by Oui - Jun 209 comments
by Oui - Jun 191 comment
by Oui - Jun 19
by Oui - Jun 182 comments
by Oui - Jun 181 comment
by Oui - Jun 151 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1523 comments
by Oui - Jun 1427 comments
by Oui - Jun 132 comments
by Oui - Jun 125 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1131 comments
by Oui - Jun 101 comment
by Oui - Jun 104 comments
by gmoke - Jun 89 comments