Let me state what I think about religion. The single reality becomes conscious of itself through individual organisms, which are its members, and appears to itself as the empirically discernible universe. The One, as Plato called it, is within and beyond everything experienced. Some of its members conceive of it as not or not only the essence of the universe but also an extra-cosmic creator. And indeed it does create everything that we see although not, in my opinion, consciously. Consciousness is a summit of creation, not its origin. Someone that I know responds to the One by reading the Bible and concluding that "Christ Jesus is the Messiah." I respond to that same One by practising just sitting meditation. Through both of us, the One understands itself, albeit partially and differently.
That is as close as I can get to acknowledging two aspects of religion: its importance, indeed profundity, but also its diversity.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
More literally, I think any religion deserving of that name has to believe and teach beliefs about God or gods.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Religion is response to transcendence. Theism is personification of transcendence, therefore one kind of religion. Non-theistic religions are Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism and the Hindu Samkhya system.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because a "non-theistic religion" makes no sense to me. I call things like Buddhism merely a philosophy because Buddha himself had little interest in "religion," strictly understood. Albeit I realize both it and Taoism soon had a lot of "popular" religion mixed into it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I still disagree. Religion is response to transcendence and the search for liberation/enlightenment/salvation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What good is this "transcendence" if, as you believe, there is nothing after death, just non existent blackness? You won't have any memory/awareness of such a thing.
No, the true transcendence is knowledge of, and union with God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What good is it? Why does good have to consist in our survival? Oneness and transcendence are good here and now. That is all.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And will mean nothing, according to your beliefs, after death. Theism makes far more sense!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Theism does not make sense because the creator before the creation would be a self without an other which is like a square without sides.
Things can only mean anything to us when we are alive. We need to be concerned about the life that people have while they are alive. We cannot do anything for someone who is dead.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree, because I believe the Trinity answers your objection.
But your own beliefs contradicts what you said about life--if there is nothing after death why should anyone care what happens while alive?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not trying to agree. Did you read my recent reply about the Trinity?
How is it contradictory to care about what happens during life if nothing happens after death? All the more reason to value life.
Does an electric light cease to have use or value because it is lit by electrons, not by an indwelling spirit as a primitive might think?
Paul.
The Trinity.
If a subject of consciousness has neither a body nor an environment, then:
What is he conscious of?
How is he conscious of it?
How does he respond to it?
How does adding two more disembodied persons answer these questions?
If these persons are describable as "good," then this means that they are disposed to act in a particular way towards other beings but there are no other beings on this hypothesis. Can attitudes exist in a vacuum?
Of course the Trinity is said to create other beings but how is it conscious in the first place?
I have encountered this before. Someone believes in a hereafter. Therefore, he believes that that hereafter gives meaning to life. Therefore, he thinks that life without a hereafter is meaningless. But meanwhile secularists and Humanists lead meaningful lives. They contradict religious believers, not themselves.
Post a Comment