Religion: More Trouble than it is worth?

[Prebe]

So, as you can see, there is great danger in the idea of reading a holy book and/or taking it literally. Of course, this is the case for all books that speak of transcendent concepts (philosophy, poetry, theology, and so on), simply because of the inadequacy of the support.

Agreed. What I have a problem with is that holy writings claim some sort of infalability because of the divine source.

So to repeat my question: where can I (as a non-philosopher without much time to think about the deep questions in life) look to find the fundamental priciple of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, if I don't belive in a deity?

[Xar]

That's a good question. The principles of almost every religion, both living and dead, are remarkably similar to the principles of morality. Most of the great religions of the present and the past - Christianity, Islam, Hebraism, Zoroastrianism, to cite a few - have simple tenets at the core of their beliefs, which are of course formulated differently, but which are also basically the same. To live a good life, in harmony with the other people, and strive not to hurt, and to improve the condition of mankind. Note that I'm not talking strictly about the physical condition of mankind, but of its spiritual dimension: that is, strive to reach an enlightenment of sorts.

Take, for example, the motto of Zoroastrians, a 3,000-year-old religion, once the greatest on Earth, still existing today and being considered to have influenced most of the monotheistic religions that came after it. It's a very simple motto: "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds". This 3,000-year-old religion preached equality of sex, cleanliness of the environment, hard work, charity, condemnation of the oppression of human beings, cruelty against animals, equality of all humans regardless of race or religion, respect of everything on Earth. Are these not sensible concepts?

If you believe in a deity, this sort of precepts helps you get closer to that deity; if you do not, this is simply a sensible recommendation.

The way principles are then articulated differs from religion to religion, of course; and within each of these cases, some sects and groups always find a way to distort the message. But this does not in any way means that the principles themselves were not worth it.

[Avatar]

Excellent post Xar. Unfortunately Prebe, you'll find as many concepts about the fundamental tenets of any religion as you will interpretations about the finer points.

Xar's example is a good one. Personally, I've always seen that line as meaning exactly what Xar doesn't. That only through conversion to Christianity can you achieve "salvation."

But the principles that he cites are all ones that I accept as being worthwhile attempts by religion to improve the lives of people.

See, the thing is, if you don't believe in a deity, then there is no reason to live by them, because it doesn't matter.

Reflection and contemplation, and the ever-important "How would I feel" question may bring you to the conclusion that those are worthy and admirable behaviours. But if there is no god, you are neither rewarded for following them, nor punished for ignoring them.

Personally, I believe that they are good in and of themselves, because I would prefer a world in which people lived by those precepts to one in which they do not. (The one we have in fact. ) But it's a personal choice.

Believing as I do, it doesn't matter whether or not we follow them. I just think it's nicer. I think it's better. But that's just me.

--A

[Prebe]

Good post indeed Xar. I guess to get to answer the question that this post asks, we need statistics that we will never be able to lay our hands on

[Xar]

Xar's example is a good one. Personally, I've always seen that line as meaning exactly what Xar doesn't. That only through conversion to Christianity can you achieve "salvation."

You know, Avatar, there's a great irony there... after all, given the fact that I'm a believer and you aren't, it would have been far more logical if our positions on that example had been reversed.

But this prompts the question - how much our being believers or nonbelievers colors our perceptions of a certain religion's tenets and beliefs?

This prompts a new thread...

[Avatar]

Since I see that you've made the new thread, I shall hie myself there forthwith and make my comments there instead.

But yes, ironic it certainly is, and an irony I appreciated myself.

--A

[variol son]

Well, it all depends what you are wanting to get out of religion as to whether it is worth it or not.

When I first joined my local Pentecostal church at the age of 16, I was looking for love and acceptance - to feel that I belonged somewhere. I desired to be part of a community, to share both life and purpose with others.

This is what I received, and because of that I felt that no price was too high. I sacrificed my friendships, my relationships with family, my hobbies, and many academic and cultural opportunites, all for the church. And I felt good in doing so, since the church and it's members had given me so much.

However, there came a time when I no longer had to relay on the church alone to feel accepted. I gained more self-confidence and made friends in a variety of different settings. It was at this time that I found that as I needed the church less and less, it demanded more and more from me. And the things it gave in return became less valuable.

So, by the time I left the church I was putting in almost as many hours there as I was at polytch, but getting back nothing but guilt and condemnation. Which is when I realized that religion was no longer worth the effort, so I set it aside and moved on.

[Avatar]

An excellent post as usual Variol Son, and a very important point, I think.

The value of anything is based on how much you want what it gives you, and how important it is in relation to the effort you're putting into it.

If it does nothing more than teach you what you really want, then it'd be worth it for that alone, provided you take what you've learnt and move on with it. It's when you start to pour yourself into it for it's own sake that it becomes...troublesome. Or something.

--A