I believe that something significant is being overlooked here: We tend to mix the concept of teopathy (the feeling, the personal "god experience") with the concept of theology (the "explanation" and contextualisation of teopathy) and then proceed to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my opinion, teopathy may as well be an aesthetical as a metaphysical concept. Either way it is subjective and experience-based.
If I were to criticise religions, it would be for their "hidden agenda" of trying to establish the principle and idea that there exists an unquestionable, cosmic authority somewhere, and that there is a special caste of people who are qualified (or trained) to speak on behalf of this authority. I do not necessarily have any problem with people having "faith" in and of itself. Whatever gets you through the night. (Although I am not a believer myself and I do find it somewhat infantile to rely on pixies and fairy dust, especially if you lay claim to being an intelligent creature.)
One of my biggest issues as well:the fact that they are selling certainty instead of doubt or question. They have no clue. None of us do.
Even our brightest scientists are our equals on that scale. Though they have great theories and ideas,they don't pretend to be certain(the better of them at least).
Religion however goes right in the opposite direction. They make up a certainty and "Guess what?! Also included is a set of rules by which you have to live by!"
As for the aesthetics that have been crafted by the hands of religious minded folks,I still believe some of the most beautiful sculptures grace the outsides of many a catholic cathedral. Absolutely gorgeous. Even down to the stained glass windows and towering ceilings that (by no coincidence of the artist(s') design) draw the eyes upward and take one's breath.
It could have been a brothel or a church. It doesn't matter. Beauty is beauty none the less.
Previous Topic
Index
