A person’s understanding of what religion is is quite often convoluted with established ideas of religious behaviours (e.g. terrorism). I would say that religions challenge followers to enquire; at the very centre of religion is the idea that one must be mindful of ethics and various ideas; one is obliged to constantly negotiate, question and pass judgements. And although I accept that a non-believer may be doing the same things; I believe that a believer’s resolve is less fraying. They are cogzinant of greater truths than the short-sighted non-believer. It is also true that by the very nature of religion one is limited, does that not reflect our reality as human beings? Impossibility is not just an idea, it is a reality. Such is the realm to which we belong- fleeting and limiting.
What, then, makes a true religion; one free from human tampering? My personal belief is that all religions must be timeless: they must not incorporate or favour a particular context. This means that the faith is applicable to both everybody and all possible states-of-affairs. Exceptions are made, however, in the case that a religion is rehashed by its creator for different nations. They must also involve a guide/guides and a path of guidance for the guided; this guided path involves (ritual) worship and reward for fulfilling its obligations. Personal existence must also continue after death otherwise there is no religion. An emphasis is perhaps placed on religion being reflective of the masses as it aims to guide them; in this sense religious feelings are important as most humans are influenced by emotional disposition. There are also considerations of outliers and their significance as well as overbearing notions that mean to justify outlying groups and other challenges to faith.
In short, a divine ethical code, some/no allowance for contextuality, worship and sanctity, chastisement and reward (/ lack thereof) and the afterlife must all be constituent parts of religion. The extent to which a religion fulfils these criteria should, in theory, reflect the truth of said religion.
Note: this is just a brief non-paradigmatic view of religion.
I cannot entertain assertions that ‘the world would be better off without religion’ because they assume an atheistic position. We must first arrive at the point of atheism.
Overall, I think we should less readily take positions with respect to God (theism/atheism/agnosticism) and more actively engage with religious literature. If you have faith then test and affirm it; if you lack it then seek to question it.
What, then, makes a true religion; one free from human tampering? My personal belief is that all religions must be timeless: they must not incorporate or favour a particular context. This means that the faith is applicable to both everybody and all possible states-of-affairs. Exceptions are made, however, in the case that a religion is rehashed by its creator for different nations. They must also involve a guide/guides and a path of guidance for the guided; this guided path involves (ritual) worship and reward for fulfilling its obligations. Personal existence must also continue after death otherwise there is no religion. An emphasis is perhaps placed on religion being reflective of the masses as it aims to guide them; in this sense religious feelings are important as most humans are influenced by emotional disposition. There are also considerations of outliers and their significance as well as overbearing notions that mean to justify outlying groups and other challenges to faith.
In short, a divine ethical code, some/no allowance for contextuality, worship and sanctity, chastisement and reward (/ lack thereof) and the afterlife must all be constituent parts of religion. The extent to which a religion fulfils these criteria should, in theory, reflect the truth of said religion.
Note: this is just a brief non-paradigmatic view of religion.
I cannot entertain assertions that ‘the world would be better off without religion’ because they assume an atheistic position. We must first arrive at the point of atheism.
Overall, I think we should less readily take positions with respect to God (theism/atheism/agnosticism) and more actively engage with religious literature. If you have faith then test and affirm it; if you lack it then seek to question it.
