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 - Sep 21 52 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 19 16 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 21 10 comments
by Oui - Sep 17 18 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 14 18 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 13 5 comments
by fjallstrom - Sep 8 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 221 comment
by Oui - Sep 2110 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2152 comments
by Oui - Sep 191 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1916 comments
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1813 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1718 comments
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1418 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 135 comments
by Oui - Sep 133 comments
by Oui - Sep 12
by Oui - Sep 104 comments
by Cat - Sep 104 comments
by gmoke - Sep 103 comments
by fjallstrom - Sep 816 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 454 comments
by Oui - Sep 45 comments