I am not anti-religion, even as an atheist. But I am saying that religion is insufficient to guide peoples life as it needs rational interpretation. Interpretations vary because they come from within religion, Shiites versus Sunnites, Lutherans versus Catholics and so on. It is a never-ending conflict unless interpretation is guided by reason aiming for consensus. This was the triumph of the Age of Enlightenment, namely that politics and the state have to be secular and need to be negotiated fairly for all without religious agendas. Religion is thus only as good as the interpretation of it. Its main function is to control people socially and to give them comfort. More and more educated people find love and comfort outside religion, this is why they dont need it anymore. As the world gets more complex people may polarize into those who are afraid of change and globalization (they will tend to hang on to religion) and those who are open to change and become atheists, liberated unbelievers. More liberal religious people tend to re-interpret their religion in open, more philosophical terms.Maimonides adaptation of Aristotelian thought to Biblical faith is a good example. It is a choice between traditionalism and fundamentalism and discourse.
Posted on: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 01:55:56 +0000